PDA

View Full Version : How is it possible for I1 to exist?



I1a3_Young
05-06-17, 16:18
I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.

From 27,500 ybp to 4600 ybp, the population containing I1 males was isolated or "bottle necked." This is known because all I1 have about 300 of the same mutation which is radically different than the other ydna hgs that I've read about.


How is this possible in Europe, considering 27.5k ybp was an ice age, then a warming, then the LGM (presumed forced migration). Everything I've seen about Europe's population and cultures have shown spreading, mixing, and replacing with a certain predictability. None of the other haplogroups had this isolation.

What part of Europe could these I1 have been in during the ice ages and in between? What caused them to come out of isolation 4600 ybp? Did they maintain a territory through strength but refuse to invade others until overwhelmed by R1b expansion?

How could the I1 mesolithics survive the incursion of neolithic farmers and maintain yDNA continuity? Was the neolithic farmer mixing after 4600 ybp?


Perhaps there were many I1 groups and only one small group survived, and all of that one small group would have the 300 mutations. But if that were true then it would mean the others were 100% wiped out. I find that as unlikely as one group surviving unmixed for the long period of time. It's absolutely mind boggling that any yDNA hg could maintain isolation in a highly contested Europe for about 23,000 years.

LeBrok
05-06-17, 16:54
Sometimes it is just pure luck, or developing one or two advantages mutations to give it a bit more chance in the right time. Haplogroup C wasn't that lucky, though used to be more popular in Europe than I1.

Rethel
05-06-17, 17:04
I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.

Simply they are not so old. It is humbug.
I1 the youngest estimated age of common ancestor is 3180 years.

Apsurdistan
05-06-17, 18:33
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who's confused about this. It does sound pretty crazy but apparently there are no other explanations yet.

bicicleur
05-06-17, 19:07
I2 replaced all I*, except 1 man, ancestral to I1

I1a3_Young
05-06-17, 19:25
I2 replaced all I*, except 1 man, ancestral to I1

I think this is very likely. Then somehow, there was a massive resurgence of I1 in the central and north central Europe which founder-effected Scandinavia.

The I1 expansion there would have been nearly as impressive as the European R1b expansion, but the R1b tree began with a much larger group. If this is the case, then it seems "lucky" for I1 to have done what it has.

IronSide
05-06-17, 20:29
Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.

I1a3_Young
05-06-17, 21:52
So this mystery I1 survivor and progenitor....shall we call him I1 Abraham or I1 Ghengis Khan?

Anyhow, it is remarkable for I1 to have "ridden the wave" and actually come out ahead from the other expansions into Europe.

MarkoZ
05-06-17, 22:44
In stochastic population growth models it is fully expected that a few paternal markers would rise to prominence at the expense of others. This has nothing to do with metal age rapists.

Many population growth processes can be approximated by Zipfian law. It explains haplotype frequencies very well:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/07/022160

I1a3_Young
05-06-17, 23:04
In stochastic population growth models it is fully expected that a few paternal markers would grow to prominence at the expense of others. This has nothing to do with metal age rapists.

Many population growth processes can be approximated by Zipfian law. It explains haplotype frequencies very well:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/07/022160

Funny that they mention Ghengis Khan in the abstract which I had also just mentioned. I don't think it's unusual for any haplogroup to rise to prominence. It's unusual that I1 seemed to have been swept up in the wave of invasion by other people, and somebody translated a previous position of weakness to one of lasting power (from a gene pool perspective).

Angela
05-06-17, 23:14
Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but Corded Ware had nothing to do with horse riding warriors with bronze weapons. The early Corded Ware groups barely even had any copper and what they had wasn't very good. They certainly didn't have a lot of copper weapons. Metal weapons slowly infiltrated as time went on. Neither did BB have bronze. Again, just some copper, and as we can tell from the examination of grave finds, in a recent paper as well as in prior ones, not weapons, and inferior to Iberian Beaker copper.

As for horse riding, there's no actual evidence for that at all to my knowledge, just a lot of supposition and conjecture. Corded Ware didn't have many horses; their wagons were pulled by oxen. To the best of my recollection the earliest evidence of any kind for horse riding is to the east and quite a bit later. It did indeed spread quickly, but this tendency to conflate periods and ignore chronology isn't helpful; people writing on the internet and even published authors have done a great disservice to scholarship by making these kinds of errors.

What happened to Middle Neolithic Central and Northern Europe imo is in large part because of climate change reducing the population and causing changes in subsistence strategy. Given the latest dates showing earlier pastoralism in some areas of Central Europe than on the steppe, that subsistence strategy may have moved into the steppe, not out of it. Of course, further research and better dating might change that picture, so I'm no wedded to it.

Still, I think the picture is clear that in some places steppe admixed populations moved into almost empty landscapes, as in the far northeast, while in others they encountered much reduced populations, populations reduced not only by climate change and low crop yields and the resulting increase in known disease, but also by plague, a plague that the newcomers either brought with them or that went slightly ahead of them, and to which they probably had more resistance.

The same type of events helped to bring down Rome and the greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire.

Ed. Just to be clear, I'm by no means saying that there wouldn't have been violent conflict. I'm just saying that the narrative isn't, imo, quite what has been sold.

Promenade
05-06-17, 23:35
Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone?

Alpenjager
06-06-17, 00:47
Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone?

Yes, Survivor descents have been found in modern Europe. There is a interesting case in Alt Palancia, Castellon with modern C1a2 and ancient D (M) mtDNA.

IronSide
06-06-17, 02:17
I agree with much of what you wrote, but Corded Ware had nothing to do with horse riding warriors with bronze weapons. The early Corded Ware groups barely even had any copper and what they had wasn't very good. They certainly didn't have a lot of copper weapons. Metal weapons slowly infiltrated as time went on. Neither did BB have bronze. Again, just some copper, and as we can tell from the examination of grave finds, in a recent paper as well as in prior ones, not weapons, and inferior to Iberian Beaker copper.

As for horse riding, there's no actual evidence for that at all to my knowledge, just a lot of supposition and conjecture. Corded Ware didn't have many horses; their wagons were pulled by oxen. To the best of my recollection the earliest evidence of any kind for horse riding is to the east and quite a bit later. It did indeed spread quickly, but this tendency to conflate periods and ignore chronology isn't helpful; people writing on the internet and even published authors have done a great disservice to scholarship by making these kinds of errors.

What happened to Middle Neolithic Central and Northern Europe imo is in large part because of climate change reducing the population and causing changes in subsistence strategy. Given the latest dates showing earlier pastoralism in some areas of Central Europe than on the steppe, that subsistence strategy may have moved into the steppe, not out of it. Of course, further research and better dating might change that picture, so I'm no wedded to it.

Still, I think the picture is clear that in some places steppe admixed populations moved into almost empty landscapes, as in the far northeast, while in others they encountered much reduced populations, populations reduced not only by climate change and low crop yields and the resulting increase in known disease, but also by plague, a plague that the newcomers either brought with them or that went slightly ahead of them, and to which they probably had more resistance.

The same type of events helped to bring down Rome and the greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire.

Ed. Just to be clear, I'm by no means saying that there wouldn't have been violent conflict. I'm just saying that the narrative isn't, imo, quite what has been sold.

Alright, I stand corrected on the Bronze weapons thing, as for horses, even if it is a conjecture as you say, I believe its a very reasonable one, using a bottom up approach, all daughter cultures that developed from Indo-European speakers glorified the horse, it is inconceivable for Corded Ware people not to have horses, maybe a shortage of that beautiful animal but not complete absence.

I agree with the rest, except the plague part, if the newcomers did bring a plague that they were immune to, then it must have affected the men more than the women, for some reason female lineages survived more than male ones.

IronSide
06-06-17, 02:30
Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone? If you care, even H2 still survives in Europe https://www.familytreedna.com/public/YHaploGroupH?iframe=yresults

six people in western Europe, notice how different their str results to turkish and caucasian sampels, to make sure that they are not recently related to them and indeed date to the neolithic.

Angela
06-06-17, 02:52
Alright, I stand corrected on the Bronze weapons thing, as for horses, even if it is a conjecture as you say, I believe its a very reasonable one, using a bottom up approach, all daughter cultures that developed from Indo-European speakers glorified the horse, it is inconceivable for Corded Ware people not to have horses, maybe a shortage of that beautiful animal but not complete absence.

I agree with the rest, except the plague part, if the newcomers did bring a plague that they were immune to, then it must have affected the men more than the women, for some reason female lineages survived more than male ones. Your bolded statement is very accurate. The same thing happened in the New World, although of course that was different because the difference in technology was indeed extreme.

That's why I added that there probably was violent conflict as well. I just think a lot of the narrative has been romanticized.

What may also have happened is that more women than men were included by the newcomers because more men made the migration than women to some degree, although I think the Reich Lab rejoinder to the latest paper analyzing the X chromosome indicates it wasn't as extreme as some people have proposed. The daughters of these women would have had a lot better chance for survival because of the genes of their fathers, a far better chance of survival than the daughters of the native fathers.

This part is obviously conjecture on my part as well, not fact like what's in the graves and other sites of the Corded Ware and BB people versus the people of MN Europe. Hopefully, as we get more and more samples, the scientists will be able to model better what happened.

Apsurdistan
06-06-17, 04:44
I think the horse thing in warfare is exaggerated. The horse is mostly useful for transportation, I don't see why you kill someone easier if you're on a horse or not. To me it seems like it's pretty easy to mess someone up on a horse cuz they're an even bigger target who's less agile and you can kill the horse or injure it then the horse freaks out and might even do the killing for you. Just throw a spear at it or something shoot it with bow and arrow. Now horseback mounted archery that is a big advantage.
Having metal weapons would be a huge advantage against primitives who don't even have metallurgy.

LeBrok
06-06-17, 05:51
I think the horse thing in warfare is exaggerated. The horse is mostly useful for transportation, I don't see why you kill someone easier if you're on a horse or not. To me it seems like it's pretty easy to mess someone up on a horse cuz they're an even bigger target who's less agile and you can kill the horse or injure it then the horse freaks out and might even do the killing for you. Just throw a spear at it or something shoot it with bow and arrow. Now horseback mounted archery that is a big advantage.
Having metal weapons would be a huge advantage against primitives who don't even have metallurgy.
Sure, skilful infantry knew how to deal with cavalry. However, warriors on horses have quite few advantages. They can move distances much quicker and carry more food and weapons. On battle field they could quickly outmaneuver infantry and mount surprise quick attack. With head on collision mass and speed of cavalry could kill infantry even without using weapons. Cavalry was often used to break defensive lines of infantry. Think blitzkrieg.

Apsurdistan
06-06-17, 07:10
Sure, skilful infantry knew how to deal with cavalry. However, warriors on horses have quite few advantages. They can move distances much quicker and carry more food and weapons. On battle field they could quickly outmaneuver infantry and mount surprise quick attack. With head on collision mass and speed of cavalry could kill infantry even without using weapons. Cavalry was often used to break defensive lines of infantry. Think blitzkrieg.

I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject I'm speaking from an average dummy perspective. I'm just trying to point out that some comments in the thread are exaggerating this idea that warriors on horses or cavalry could easily defeat infantry warriors. There are advantages but there are disadvantages too. Advantage covering long distance, one on one battle with spears, axes and swords, you don't have a big advantage if you're on a horse. Even without weapons a guy on foot especially more than one guy could easily pull you off that horse.
Plus I highly doubt there were organized army battles of this sort going on during the so called Indo-European expansion into Europe. Where's any evidence of that?

However Eurasian steppe warriors with horseback mounted archery were like the special forces cavalry. They were really good and really made use of the horse in warfare. And they practically lived on the horse. Using the compound bow and the attack and retreat attack again strategy. As it's well known the Mongol Empire had huge success with that.

bicicleur
06-06-17, 10:47
domestication of the horse was a long and gradual process
we know Khvalynsk culture already had an affinity to horses and they probably knew very much about the behaviour of horse herds and maybe also knew how to influence or drive such horse herds
this affinity to horses spread all over the steppe
the first changes in size of horses indicating domestication however is 4.5 ka in the Carpathian Basin in the late Vucedol area
maybe the central European Bell Beaker had some of these horses when they spread into northwestern Europe
we know the horse-drawn charriot developped in Sintashta 4 ka
these horses where well-trained for their job but it is still not a proof that they were ridden, on the contrary it is proof that efficient use of horses was only possible with chariots

I1a3_Young
06-06-17, 15:13
I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject I'm speaking from an average dummy perspective. I'm just trying to point out that some comments in the thread are exaggerating this idea that warriors on horses or cavalry could easily defeat infantry warriors. There are advantages but there are disadvantages too. Advantage covering long distance, one on one battle with spears, axes and swords, you don't have a big advantage if you're on a horse. Even without weapons a guy on foot especially more than one guy could easily pull you off that horse.
Plus I highly doubt there were organized army battles of this sort going on during the so called Indo-European expansion into Europe. Where's any evidence of that?

However Eurasian steppe warriors with horseback mounted archery were like the special forces cavalry. They were really good and really made use of the horse in warfare. And they practically lived on the horse. Using the compound bow and the attack and retreat attack again strategy. As it's well known the Mongol Empire had huge success with that.

Skilled horsemen are a massive advantage. Mobility aids in scouting, tactics, and supply train. A few horsemen alone might not defeat a whole group of infantry but can 10 infantry fight 5 infantry plus 5 horsemen?

Mounted warfare is a very serious business but not all cultures made use of it. Alexander famously used cavalry tactics to force open a lane and rush the opposing commander/king to force a retreat.

The bigger a battle, the more important to have a mobile unit of flanking horsemen. Have you even been up close to a horse as it gallops past? It's a bit scary without mounted warriors trying to kill you. I've seen trained horsemen put 2.5m lances on a target as small as a coin as they gallop past full speed. You could not pay me enough to try and fight one of those guys while I was on foot and they were mounted.

And if the battle moves unfavorably for the horsemen, they can just run away while infantry units don't have the same option. Using the mobility factor alone to choose favorable fights is a very big advantage.

LeBrok
06-06-17, 17:00
domestication of the horse was a long and gradual process
we know Khvalynsk culture already had an affinity to horses and they probably knew very much about the behaviour of horse herds and maybe also knew how to influence or drive such horse herds
this affinity to horses spread all over the steppe
the first changes in size of horses indicating domestication however is 4.5 ka in the Carpathian Basin in the late Vucedol area
maybe the central European Bell Beaker had some of these horses when they spread into northwestern Europe
we know the horse-drawn charriot developped in Sintashta 4 ka
these horses where well-trained for their job but it is still not a proof that they were ridden, on the contrary it is proof that efficient use of horses was only possible with chariots
We have to keep in mind that original horses were very small. Google "Przewalski horse" or Mongolian horse. That's why they were not used to pull wagons. If anything they could only be used to ride them. Because of the size they were easier to tame, mount and ride by people. Anthony sees first horse riding at Botai culture 4,000 years BC or so.
At the time of first chariots, horses were bigger and stronger, by selective breeding.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/14/12/3130D0EE00000578-0-image-a-10_1455451912389.jpg

Apsurdistan
06-06-17, 17:02
If you're that terrified of a horse that's your opinion. I'll throw a guy off a horse like a sack of potatoes. I'm much smarter than an 800lbs dumb animal and I can run circles around that thing. It's not a freakin tank. Give me a good sling shot and I'll fight a horse mounted guy, let alone like a bow and arrow or a good spear. Throw a knife or hatchet at it even a rock. I THREW AN APPLE in a horses face when I was a kid and it totally flipped out started galloping and freaking out lifting its upper lip and stuff.

Btw dude.. I never said there are no advantages to horseback warfare. I merely pointed out that some comments in here are romantizing things we know so very little about way out of proportion. It just starts to sound childish like some kid who just watched an action movie. I mean there's nothing wrong with that if you're being sarcastic and funny.

Let's make horseback great again! lol

Angela
06-06-17, 17:03
Gentlemen, this may all be very true, but not even the most rabid purveyors of this version of the Indo-European migrations would contend that the kind of mounted warfare you're describing was in existence in the time in question. The equipment for it wasn't developed until at least a thousand years in the future, sometimes two thousand years.

"The first use of horses in warfare occurred over 5,000 years ago. The earliest evidence of horses ridden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrianism) in warfare dates from Eurasia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia) between 4000 and 3000 BC. A Sumerian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer) illustration of warfare from 2500 BC depicts some type of equine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equidae) pulling wagons. By 1600 BC, improved harness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_harness) and chariot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot) designs made chariot warfare common throughout the Ancient Near East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Near_East), and the earliest written training manual for war horses was a guide for training chariot horses written about 1350 BC. As formal cavalry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry) tactics replaced the chariot, so did new training methods, and by 360 BC, the Greek cavalry officer Xenophon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon) had written an extensive treatise on horsemanship. The effectiveness of horses in battle was also revolutionized by improvements in technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology), including the invention of the saddle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddle), the stirrup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup), and later, the horse collar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_warfare

By all means research it in the academic journals, but that's the gist of it.
Indeed, horses seem to have been used very early for transport. Then, the idea surfaced to use them to pull light chariots in battle. The first evidence for a light, spoked-wheel chariot wheel was found in Sintasha in 2000 BC., long after the movement of the Indo-Europeans into Central and Northern Europe, although even then there's debate as to whether it was actually a war chariot.

"Horses were probably first used to pull chariots in battle starting around 1500 BC. But it wasn't until around 900 BC that warriors themselves commonly fought on horseback. Among the first mounted archers and fighters were the Scythians, a group of nomadic Asian warriors who often raided the ancient Greeks.For Greeks who had never before seen a person on horseback, the first sight of these riders racing toward them while firing volleys of arrows must have been truly terrifying. Some modern scholars wonder if early sightings of strangers on horseback might have inspired the Greek myths about the legendary half-man, half-horse beings called centaurs."

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/horse/how-we-shaped-horses-how-horses-shaped-us/warfare/riding-into-battles/

Why would the Greeks, an Indo-European culture derived from Mycenaenas, be so in awe of horse mounted warriors if they'd had it all along. As I said, the lifestyle, fighting techniques etc. of groups like the Scythians have been imposed by some onto people who lived 2,000 years earlier.

Apsurdistan
06-06-17, 17:04
We have to keep in mind that original horses were very small. Google "Przewalski horse" or Mongolian horse. That's why they were not used to pull wagons. If anything they could only be used to ride them. Because of the size they were easier to tame, mount and ride by people. Anthony sees first horse riding at Botai culture 4,000 years BC or so.
At the time of first chariots, horses were bigger and stronger, by selective breeding.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/14/12/3130D0EE00000578-0-image-a-10_1455451912389.jpg

That looks basically like a donkey... I wonder how fast it can run

You could drop-kick someone off of that mule or tackle him. Or jump on it behind the rider now you got his back how vulnerable is he then? Wouldn't wanna be in that position.

Apsurdistan
06-06-17, 17:15
It is pretty bad ass to be on a horse swinging some intimidating weapon, no doubt about that.

But it's not a magical invulnerable super weapon.

bicicleur
06-06-17, 18:02
We have to keep in mind that original horses were very small. Google "Przewalski horse" or Mongolian horse. That's why they were not used to pull wagons. If anything they could only be used to ride them. Because of the size they were easier to tame, mount and ride by people. Anthony sees first horse riding at Botai culture 4,000 years BC or so.
At the time of first chariots, horses were bigger and stronger, by selective breeding.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/14/12/3130D0EE00000578-0-image-a-10_1455451912389.jpg

like humans the size of horses varies
the size of the horse depended on the climate and the amount of food available

Anthony mentions that first size variation of horses indicating some degree of selection and domestication occurs in the Carpathian Basin 4.5 ka
that fits well with the first horses trained for chariot warfare 500 years later

he argues that 'cheeckpieces' found in the steppe indicates the horses were ridden earlier
but not everyone agrees with that

I1a3_Young
06-06-17, 19:20
Gentlemen, this may all be very true, but not even the most rabid purveyors of this version of the Indo-European migrations would contend that the kind of mounted warfare you're describing was in existence in the time in question. The equipment for it wasn't developed until at least a thousand years in the future, sometimes two thousand years.

I wasn't implying the IE were chivalric mounted masters, I was going off topic with Apsurdistan about general cavalry capabilities in the modern sense, as he is comparing himself in battle to mounted fighters.

A typical female teen-aged barrel racer around here would probably take him down :) He should come to a rodeo here and see if he can convince a cowboy or cowgirl to a duel :)

Even barring the lack of mounted combat, horses are a great tool. They are great for transport, supply chains, and scouting - all critical to success of any military or benign large scale operation.

I1a3_Young
06-06-17, 19:46
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30405-Tracing-the-genetic-origin-of-Europe-s-first-farmers

This was the thread discussing the find of the earliest I1 found. It's in Hungary in the LBK culture, but was the only one found among mostly G2a and another I*. Autosomally I think this I1 was mostly EEF.

I read that no samples of the Funnel Beaker DNA have been obtained. The maps of that zone and the time period could probably solve the I1 mystery if enough samples are discovered.

bicicleur
06-06-17, 20:50
this one was pre-I1, but not I1 :



Sweden
Stora Förvar cave, Stora Karlsö Island [SfF11]
M
7500-7250 cal. BP




U5a1
Skoglund 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2014)



https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/

we don't have the calls for the LBK sample, we don't know if he is a candidate to be ancestral to the I1 clade

Angela
06-06-17, 20:54
I wasn't implying the IE were chivalric mounted masters, I was going off topic with Apsurdistan about general cavalry capabilities in the modern sense, as he is comparing himself in battle to mounted fighters.

A typical female teen-aged barrel racer around here would probably take him down :) He should come to a rodeo here and see if he can convince a cowboy or cowgirl to a duel :)

Even barring the lack of mounted combat, horses are a great tool. They are great for transport, supply chains, and scouting - all critical to success of any military or benign large scale operation.

I agree.

Now that's a rodeo event I'd like to see. :)

Apsurdistan
07-06-17, 02:40
Me too... but someone would get seriously hurt and it wouldn't be me.

I'm a cowboy.... gonna steal the horse I ride
And I'm wanted.... dead or alive

LeBrok
07-06-17, 05:22
That looks basically like a donkey... I wonder how fast it can run

You could drop-kick someone off of that mule or tackle him. Or jump on it behind the rider now you got his back how vulnerable is he then? Wouldn't wanna be in that position.
See, first horses were used only for transportation. This horses can trot 50 km a day with a man on their back and weapons. Even if these warriors fight on foot and use horses only for transport, they will outmaneuver infantry and come to the battle rested, unlike infantry marching to the fight for few days and being exhausted. American Indians used horses like this at the beginning. Just ride them to the battle or for a sneak attack far away.

Cavalry existed around the world pretty much till WW2. If it wasn't effective in a battle it would have been dropped long time ago like chariots, right? In reality..., I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

Apsurdistan
07-06-17, 07:22
See, first horses were used only for transportation. This horses can trot 50 km a day with a man on their back and weapons. Even if these warriors fight on foot and use horses only for transport, they will outmaneuver infantry and come to the battle rested, unlike infantry marching to the fight for few days and being exhausted. American Indians used horses like this at the beginning. Just ride them to the battle or for a sneak attack far away.

Cavalry existed around the world pretty much till WW2. If it wasn't effective in a battle it would have been dropped long time ago like chariots, right? In reality..., I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

Of course until vehicles were invented and became widely used. That's why the word horsepower is still used.

And obviously I wouldn't just stand there. I'd use a horse whistle that works like a dog whistle.

davef
07-06-17, 07:39
Me too... but someone would get seriously hurt and it wouldn't be me.

I'm a cowboy.... gonna steal the horse I ride
And I'm wanted.... dead or alive

Whoa..all this time I thought the lyrics went "On a steel horse I ride"...lol.

bicicleur
07-06-17, 09:19
I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

that is iron age, it didn't exist in bronze age

davef
07-06-17, 09:58
I agree.

Now that's a rodeo event I'd like to see. :)

So would I, bc Apsurdistan will win.

I1a3_Young
07-06-17, 16:29
I picture results like these, and these aren't "war" horses trained to bite and kick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbCHZVDfhi0

LATGAL
08-06-17, 20:27
These two papers might be of some interest:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qq4w9q5 (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qq4w9q5#page-10)

http://www.academia.edu/3535004/The_Secondary_Products_Revolution_Horse-riding_and_mounted_warfare_2011 (the 'Horseback Riding and Warfare' section in particular and the disagreements with Robert Drews' Early Riders, another worthwhile read)

Angela
08-06-17, 20:34
These two papers might be of some interest:

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qq4w9q5 (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8qq4w9q5#page-10)

http://www.academia.edu/3535004/The_Secondary_Products_Revolution_Horse-riding_and_mounted_warfare_2011 (the 'Horseback Riding and Warfare' section in particular and the disagreements with Robert Drews' Early Riders, another worthwhile read)

Thanks for the links. My memory wasn't that far off: 1-2000 years after Corded Ware moved into central Europe.

I1a3_Young
08-06-17, 23:22
The first study puts forth an idea of organized mounted warfare that depends on the earliest appearance of bronze jointed bits. They acknowledge that horses were domesticated 3500-4500 BC but that bits weren't in common use until 1000 BC.

I think that's a leap to say that there could not have been organized mounted warfare in 2500-3500 years of having domesticated horses.

You don't need a complicated bit or a saddle to fight on horseback, and certainly not a chariot

From: http://www.academia.edu/3535004/The_...d_warfare_2011 (http://www.academia.edu/3535004/The_Secondary_Products_Revolution_Horse-riding_and_mounted_warfare_2011)



On the subject of horse sizes, the Eneolithic (5200–3300 BC) horses of the Eurasian steppes were big enough to ride into battle. More than 70% of the Late Eneolithic horses at Dereivka,Ukraine (4200–3700 BC) and Botai, Kazakhstan (3600–3100 BC) stood 136–144 cm a tthe withers (shoulders), or about 13–14 hands high (Benecke and von den Dreisch2003 (http://-?-);Bibikova1970 (http://-?-)). The horses ridden into battle by Roman cavalrymen commonly measured 120–150 cm at the withers (Hyland1990 (http://-?-), p. 68), and those of the American Plains Indians stood about 130–140 cm, or ‘a little under 14 hands’ (Ewers1955 (http://-?-), p. 33. Eneolithic steppe horses were about the same size as Roman and American Indian cavalry horses. On the question of rope bits, the authors conducted a riding experiment in which two expert riders rode never-bitted horses with rope and leather bits (Brownand Anthony1998 (http://-?-); Anthony et al.2006 (http://-?-)). Our riders had ‘no problem’ controlling their horses. The American Plains Indians, regarded in the nineteenth century as among thefinest light cavalry in the world, used a ‘war bridle’ that was just a rope looped around the lower jaw (Ewers1955 (http://-?-), p. 76). History and experiment both show that horses the same size as Eneolithic steppe horses can be ridden effectively at a gallop, even in warfare, with a rope bit


Horses probably were domesticated as an inexpensive source of winter meat by people who already possessed herds of domesticated cattle and sheep. The bones of domesticated cattle and sheep first appeared in sites in the western steppes, between the Dnieper and Ural Rivers, north of the Black and Caspian Seas, about 5300–4800 BC



Horse-head maces signaled an iconic status for horses in the lower Danube valley at about 4200–3800 BC; just when horses were introduced, the intrusive Suvorovo graves appeared, and hundreds of long-established tell settlements were abandoned. Mounted raiding could have contributed to the Karanovo VI–Gumelnit¸a collapse(Anthony2007 (http://-?-), chapter 11,2010 (http://-?-)).

MOESAN
09-06-17, 22:44
See, first horses were used only for transportation. This horses can trot 50 km a day with a man on their back and weapons. Even if these warriors fight on foot and use horses only for transport, they will outmaneuver infantry and come to the battle rested, unlike infantry marching to the fight for few days and being exhausted. American Indians used horses like this at the beginning. Just ride them to the battle or for a sneak attack far away.

Cavalry existed around the world pretty much till WW2. If it wasn't effective in a battle it would have been dropped long time ago like chariots, right? In reality..., I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

I have not the movie nor the reporter's pictures but I agree about the reasoning.
I don't know the size of the first steppes poneys but after some selection it has produced somewhere some very robust, healthy and speedy little hairy horses like the Bretons' ones in the 800's (9th cy) very mobile and superior to higher horses on hilly grovy grounds, allowing approaches with a rain of projected spears and an immediate retreat before other same attack: the Franks had bad rememberings of that.

MOESAN
09-06-17, 22:54
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30405-Tracing-the-genetic-origin-of-Europe-s-first-farmers

This was the thread discussing the find of the earliest I1 found. It's in Hungary in the LBK culture, but was the only one found among mostly G2a and another I*. Autosomally I think this I1 was mostly EEF.

I read that no samples of the Funnel Beaker DNA have been obtained. The maps of that zone and the time period could probably solve the I1 mystery if enough samples are discovered.

Concerning the Western part of FBK (Long Barrows and affiliated megaliths cultures input) I rather think the most of males were Y-I2a2 (most numerous?) and a kind of Y-I2a1b - concerning the East-Germany-Poland part, I'm less sure and some Y-I1 's coud have been involved, yes, with some rare others Y-haplos?. Who knows for now?

Apsurdistan
13-06-17, 04:21
M253 and H5 heatmap from my Geno2 nextgen results

ydna8848

mtdna8849

IronSide
13-06-17, 05:56
M253 and H5 heatmap from my Geno2 nextgen results

ydna8848

mtdna8849 Oh my god the Ydna migration map is so wrong. Who ever made it didn't take much time making it hahahha, from Anatolia to central Asia xD .. and don't get me started on that trans-continental epic path to Manchuria or whatever xD.

Apsurdistan
13-06-17, 07:58
Oh my god the Ydna migration map is so wrong. Who ever made it didn't take much time making it hahahha, from Anatolia to central Asia xD .. and don't get me started on that trans-continental epic path to Manchuria or whatever xD.

Yeah that's why I posted it. That's not even Manchuria it's more like Tunguzia or something. I thought NatGeo should be a 100% legit and professional but those maps definitely look kinda odd.

Fire Haired14
13-06-17, 08:29
I1 certainly didn't exist in only one population for 20,000+ years. Think about it. Basically all R1b today is R1b M269. R1b split from R1a probably like 25,000 years ago and R1b M269 expanded lass than 10,000 years ago. Now that doesn't mean R1b remained isolated in one population which then left isolation 6,000 years ago. Ancient DNA from Europe shows R1b1 was very popular and widespread in the Mesolithic. What happened is 90%+ of that Mesolithic R1b1 went extinct and single Mesolithic R1b1 lineage known as R1b M269 rapidly expanded maybe begging in 4000 BC.

The same is probably the case for I1. I1 probably existed in several Mesolithic populations and then in around 3000 BC or whatever a single I1 lineage became very popular while most of the other I1 lineages became extinct.

Also, the oldest example of I1 is from some of mainland Europe's first farmers.

Fire Haired14
13-06-17, 08:38
Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers,

H2 still consistently pops up in Europe. It isn't odd for G2a to reach 5% and it's rare for it to be at 0%. It makes more sense any G2a in Europe is simply left overs from the first farmers than the Indo European stuff. What we used to call Germanic I2a2-M223 might actually be WHG-thenEEF I2a2a-M223 and this lineage is everywhere in Europe. Lastly British Neolithic specfic I2a clades also take up a few percent sometimes 5-10% of modern Isles Y DNA.

I1a3_Young
14-06-17, 17:31
I've been mulling over the I1 genesis for a while now and wanted to bounce this idea here:

Was I1 merely a successful I* nested within the spreading EEF G2a population?

IJK was out of Africa and in the "old world" zone. K are those who went east/northeast, J are those who stayed, and I2 went west/northwest and populated Europe after it thawed.

I have seen instances of I* found in northern Iran and sprinkled around generally in that area.

So lets separate the I2 and I* into two batches. Those who left to Europe and those who stayed behind, like the J's. During the early european farmer expansion containing mostly G2a, perhaps there was an I*, the first person to develop the M253 mutation.

We do have the first I1 sample in Hungary in the LBK culture, which was autosomally EEF and autosomally similar to the G2a found. Nowhere else among all the I2 samples do we find I1. I1 spread into Scandinavia and largely reproductively outperformed the I2 already there.

Now there could be many kinds of I*, there could have been I* who lived among the I2 but were different from the I* left behind in the east. We need more data, obviously, but some things could help:

1. YDNA samples from Funnel Beaker (currently have zero)
2. Some type of I* analysis to see where exactly they fall, such as closeness to I1, I2, etc. How are the I* found in Europe different from those elsewhere? I think that with some deep analysis we could get a clue to the formation of I1. Is there any good info or detailed analysis of I* out there? I suppose I'll start tracking I* lists and see if they list SNPs.

mwauthy
15-06-17, 05:16
I've been mulling over the I1 genesis for a while now and wanted to bounce this idea here:

Was I1 merely a successful I* nested within the spreading EEF G2a population?

IJK was out of Africa and in the "old world" zone. K are those who went east/northeast, J are those who stayed, and I2 went west/northwest and populated Europe after it thawed.

I have seen instances of I* found in northern Iran and sprinkled around generally in that area.

So lets separate the I2 and I* into two batches. Those who left to Europe and those who stayed behind, like the J's. During the early european farmer expansion containing mostly G2a, perhaps there was an I*, the first person to develop the M253 mutation.

We do have the first I1 sample in Hungary in the LBK culture, which was autosomally EEF and autosomally similar to the G2a found. Nowhere else among all the I2 samples do we find I1. I1 spread into Scandinavia and largely reproductively outperformed the I2 already there.

Now there could be many kinds of I*, there could have been I* who lived among the I2 but were different from the I* left behind in the east. We need more data, obviously, but some things could help:

1. YDNA samples from Funnel Beaker (currently have zero)
2. Some type of I* analysis to see where exactly they fall, such as closeness to I1, I2, etc. How are the I* found in Europe different from those elsewhere? I think that with some deep analysis we could get a clue to the formation of I1. Is there any good info or detailed analysis of I* out there? I suppose I'll start tracking I* lists and see if they list SNPs.

My personal opinion is that talking about I1 is misleading because 99% of I1 are DF29 but DF29 is much much younger. So for me the Hungarian sample from 7000 years ago gets lumped into the same boat as the various other I or I1 branches that died off over 27,000 years. The question is what was the genesis of DF29. What caused such a young subclade to expand? Was it purely the Germanic or Viking migrations over the past 1500 years?

I1a3_Young
15-06-17, 15:45
My personal opinion is that talking about I1 is misleading because 99% of I1 are DF29 but DF29 is much much younger. So for me the Hungarian sample from 7000 years ago gets lumped into the same boat as the various other I or I1 branches that died off over 27,000 years. The question is what was the genesis of DF29. What caused such a young subclade to expand? Was it purely the Germanic or Viking migrations over the past 1500 years?

That Hungarian sample attributed to LBK called "BAB 5" was tested for only I-M270 (I) and I-M253 (I1). We don't know if he was DF29 or any of the other 303 I1 markers.

The I* in that group had rather ambiguous test results. He was solidly positive for F but the I-M270 was sketchy. Negative for J though so they place him in I*.

The SNP tests performed on these old samples aren't very detailed at all. I suspect it's related to sample quality & quantity but if there's a chance we could get BAB 5 DNA to a full Y genome I would be so excited.

BAB5 also didn't have any solid dating in the study. They stuck him in that group based on proximity I suppose.

I1a3_Young
15-06-17, 17:06
https://yfull.com/tree/I1/

There are currently 31 Yfull kits tested that are I1 but aren't under DF29. They still have the same 304 mutations of I1 though.

I'm not sure when M-253 developed. Was it early in the I1 chain of mutations or late? If it were late then there could be many I* that are actually just pre-M253 I1 but still would be considered I1.

mwauthy
15-06-17, 20:08
https://yfull.com/tree/I1/

There are currently 31 Yfull kits tested that are I1 but aren't under DF29. They still have the same 304 mutations of I1 though.

I'm not sure when M-253 developed. Was it early in the I1 chain of mutations or late? If it were late then there could be many I* that are actually just pre-M253 I1 but still would be considered I1.

That's a good point. Which of those 304 mutations are old and from the time when I1 split from I2 and which of those mutations including M253 might be more recent. Hopefully more samples can be discovered with full y sequencing.
What's interesting is that those non DF29 samples all have a similar age to DF29. It's as if they all came from the same bottleneck and area but DF29 became much more successful.

Ukko
20-06-17, 03:26
My personal opinion is that talking about I1 is misleading because 99% of I1 are DF29 but DF29 is much much younger. So for me the Hungarian sample from 7000 years ago gets lumped into the same boat as the various other I or I1 branches that died off over 27,000 years. The question is what was the genesis of DF29. What caused such a young subclade to expand? Was it purely the Germanic or Viking migrations over the past 1500 years?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-DF29/

Finland gets hits from start to finnish of the tree and all branches, explain that..

Fire Haired14
20-06-17, 03:42
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-DF29/

Finland gets hits from start to finnish of the tree and all branches, explain that..

Exactly. I have a very immature hypothesis that I1 is an Indo European lineage from the Steppe and that Finns are a mixture of an I1 Indo European speaking people and a N1c Uralic speaking people.

Ukko
20-06-17, 04:00
Exactly. I have a very immature hypothesis that I1 is an Indo European lineage from the Steppe and that Finns are a mixture of an I1 Indo European speaking people and a N1c Uralic speaking people.

I have been saying this for years but still think I1 came by boat, they where both running the long distance trade, came in to conflict and then later merged in Sweden-Finland.
This is the origin of Germanic language, Æsir–Vanir mythology, Odin/Väinämöinen, many sagas etc.



In the Scandinavian sources they are the descendants of Yngvi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngvi)-Frey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frey) of Vanaheim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanaheim). Yngling means descendant of Frey, and in the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxo_Grammaticus) they are called the sons of Frey. Several of these kings appear in Beowulf: Eadgils (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadgils) (Adils), Onela (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onela) (Ale), and Ohthere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohthere) (Ottar Vendelkråka), but here they are called Scylfings (see the Beowulf section below).
Snorri Sturluson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorri_Sturluson) hints at a less divine origin in Skáldskaparmál (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk%C3%A1ldskaparm%C3%A1l) for this dynasty: One war-king was named Skelfir; and his house is called the House of Skilfings: his kindred is in the Eastern Land. In the 13th century, the official Swedish/Scandinavian term for the modern-day Southern Finland was "Eastern Land", Österland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterland), i.e. the eastern half of Sweden at the time.
In Ynglinga Saga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ynglinga_Saga) in 1220 AD, Snorri Sturluson discusses marriages between Swedish and Finnish royal families. In 1220 AD (c.), in the Skáldskaparmál section of Edda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edda), Sturluson discusses King Halfdan the Old (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfdan_the_Old), Nór's great-grandson, and nine of his sons who are the forefathers of various royal lineages, including "Yngvi, from whom the Ynglings are descended". According to Orkneyinga Saga (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkneyinga_Saga) in 1230 AD, Nór founded Norway. He was a direct descendant of Fornjótr (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornj%C3%B3tr), the King of "Gotlandi, Kænlandi and Finnlandi".





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æsir–Vanir_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling

bicicleur
20-06-17, 08:20
Exactly. I have a very immature hypothesis that I1 is an Indo European lineage from the Steppe and that Finns are a mixture of an I1 Indo European speaking people and a N1c Uralic speaking people.

I think that I1 was in Finland earlier than the Finns.
I1 came by boat, the Finns over land.

bicicleur
20-06-17, 08:22
I have been saying this for years but still think I1 came by boat, they where both running the long distance trade, came in to conflict and then later merged in Sweden-Finland.
This is the origin of Germanic language, Æsir–Vanir mythology, Odin/Väinämöinen, many sagas etc.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æsir–Vanir_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling

I think they were fishermen on the Baltic and became an important trading partner in the Nordic Bronze Age.

bicicleur
20-06-17, 08:28
That Hungarian sample attributed to LBK called "BAB 5" was tested for only I-M270 (I) and I-M253 (I1). We don't know if he was DF29 or any of the other 303 I1 markers.

The I* in that group had rather ambiguous test results. He was solidly positive for F but the I-M270 was sketchy. Negative for J though so they place him in I*.

The SNP tests performed on these old samples aren't very detailed at all. I suspect it's related to sample quality & quantity but if there's a chance we could get BAB 5 DNA to a full Y genome I would be so excited.

BAB5 also didn't have any solid dating in the study. They stuck him in that group based on proximity I suppose.

If BAB5 has been tested for only 1 of the 304 markers, he is very unlikely to be ancestral to I1. That would be a big coincidence. Especially as we don't know whether M253 is an early or a late SNP in the row of 304.

bicicleur
20-06-17, 08:30
https://yfull.com/tree/I1/

There are currently 31 Yfull kits tested that are I1 but aren't under DF29. They still have the same 304 mutations of I1 though.

I'm not sure when M-253 developed. Was it early in the I1 chain of mutations or late? If it were late then there could be many I* that are actually just pre-M253 I1 but still would be considered I1.

The TMRCA for DF29 is the same as for I1.
The TMRCA for both together is a very big starlike expansion that happened 4.6 ka.

I1a3_Young
20-06-17, 18:35
The TMRCA for DF29 is the same as for I1.
The TMRCA for both together is a very big starlike expansion that happened 4.6 ka.

Right. One guy or a group of brothers were a rare strain for the time (I1) around 4.6 kya. Perhaps only a few generations went by and one of their descendants became DF29. DF29 is the real "explosion" for I1, as the non-DF29 are still rare, which indicates there was little time between the DF29 explosion and the I1 survivor. Perhaps the non-DF29 are the key to finding the location of the TMRCA I1.

I've been looking at some more old samples such as I* and I haven't found anything profound. They aren't testing very many SNPs, which I admit would be difficult as only so many positions can be extracted from ancient DNA.

I don't think I1 is going to be associated with PIE, as BAB5 was LBK in a pre-PIE Hungary living alongside (and autosomally similar to) G2A/I2A EEF.

mwauthy
20-06-17, 19:19
Perhaps I1 was limited down to one village or family of brothers. One of the brothers with DF29 rose to an extreme position of power and went on a reproduction rampage similar to Ghengis Khan. Over the next couple of generations his descendants and his brothers descendants fought against each other for control of the empire and DF29 won out with non DF29 greatly reduced or massacred. This is a purely speculative hypothesis with zero evidence lol.

Expredel
21-06-17, 01:28
I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.

From 27,500 ybp to 4600 ybp, the population containing I1 males was isolated or "bottle necked." This is known because all I1 have about 300 of the same mutation which is radically different than the other ydna hgs that I've read about.
That's incorrect, I1 male share about 2300 mutations compared to I2 males. Keep in mind yfull only lists the mutations for less than 20% of the Y chromosome.



How is this possible in Europe, considering 27.5k ybp was an ice age, then a warming, then the LGM (presumed forced migration). Everything I've seen about Europe's population and cultures have shown spreading, mixing, and replacing with a certain predictability. None of the other haplogroups had this isolation.
Several Y haplogroups come close.



What part of Europe could these I1 have been in during the ice ages and in between? What caused them to come out of isolation 4600 ybp? Did they maintain a territory through strength but refuse to invade others until overwhelmed by R1b expansion?

North Africa might be an option, with I1 moving north into Europe after the ice age. Scandinavian skulls somewhat resemble North African skulls suggesting I1 is not cold adapted, while I2 appears to be.



How could the I1 mesolithics survive the incursion of neolithic farmers and maintain yDNA continuity? Was the neolithic farmer mixing after 4600 ybp?

They believe I* lost territory to the farmers until they adopted farming themselves, then they regained territory.



Perhaps there were many I1 groups and only one small group survived, and all of that one small group would have the 300 mutations. But if that were true then it would mean the others were 100% wiped out. I find that as unlikely as one group surviving unmixed for the long period of time. It's absolutely mind boggling that any yDNA hg could maintain isolation in a highly contested Europe for about 23,000 years.
Why do North Europeans have blue eyes? Did the blue-eyed people wipe out the brown-eyed people? Scientists believe that blue eyes have some kind of evolutionary advantage.

So besides genocide, a just as plausible explanation is that R1b and I1 contain beneficial mutations, causing them to spread faster. These explanations are not mutually exclusive.

Fire Haired14
21-06-17, 03:54
So besides genocide, a just as plausible explanation is that R1b and I1 contain beneficial mutations, causing them to spread faster. These explanations are not mutually exclusive.

That may be true for I1 but not R1b. R1b M269 arose in a population in Russia rich in R1b. R1b actually may have been the most popular haplogroup in Mesolithic Europe. Then founder effect after founder effect gave rise to all the major modern R1b subclades. Ancient DNA documents that R1b became popular in Western Europe due to migration not natural selection.

mwauthy
21-06-17, 05:03
There must have been some isolated selective breeding pressures on some remote Scandinavian islands similar to Polynesia.

I1a3_Young
21-06-17, 15:25
That's incorrect, I1 male share about 2300 mutations compared to I2 males. Keep in mind yfull only lists the mutations for less than 20% of the Y chromosome.

I1 vs I2 is going to be a lot more than just I1. I'm only talking about the I1 specific mutations, that is the ones between I and DF29.



Several Y haplogroups come close.

Such as? Keep in mind I'm not talking about total mutations of a person, meaning from A to R1b1a2a1aca3xyz....but only I1. I don't see another location on the hg tree with that many exclusive mutations in "one" place.



North Africa might be an option, with I1 moving north into Europe after the ice age. Scandinavian skulls somewhat resemble North African skulls suggesting I1 is not cold adapted, while I2 appears to be.

Skull measurements? Scandinavians are not the origination of I1 anyways. L22 is the Scandi branch that came to dominate, but is a branch off a continental origination (based on current facts). Skull measurements are a ridiculous way to talk about genetics in modern times. Do Germanic people and Scandinavians have different heads? Did the Scandis completely bypass all of Europe and sail directly to Denmark? Autosomal genetics tell us no.



They believe I* lost territory to the farmers until they adopted farming themselves, then they regained territory.

Who is "they" and what information are they using to offer this theory? Are I1 and I2 put back in the same group now?



Why do North Europeans have blue eyes? Did the blue-eyed people wipe out the brown-eyed people? Scientists believe that blue eyes have some kind of evolutionary advantage.

So besides genocide, a just as plausible explanation is that R1b and I1 contain beneficial mutations, causing them to spread faster. These explanations are not mutually exclusive.

My theory, which is probably common, is that blue eyes are pretty and were choice-selected rather than randomly selected due to genetic advantage.

As for beneficial mutations, any of that is probably associated with the other chromosomes. Autosomally, we have I1 transforming from EEF to Germanic/Nordic, a completely different autosomal makeup (according to known samples, which are severely lacking). This would be similar to the R1b takeover of the Basques though, so there is precedent. Whoever got the DF29 mutation is the one who had some sort of genetic procreation superiority, not the previous I1.

Expredel
22-06-17, 01:34
I1 vs I2 is going to be a lot more than just I1. I'm only talking about the I1 specific mutations, that is the ones between I and DF29.
I'm talking about the I1 specific mutations as well. yfull lists 301 mutations unique to I1, but that is not for the entire Y chromosome, only about 13% of it. You presented it as if those 301 are all the mutations, which isn't the case.



Such as? Keep in mind I'm not talking about total mutations of a person, meaning from A to R1b1a2a1aca3xyz....but only I1. I don't see another location on the hg tree with that many exclusive mutations in "one" place.
According to yfull G has 300 mutations spanning 48500 ybp till 26500 ybp. There's also a branch of K with 418 mutations, it appears to be pretty rare.



Skull measurements? Scandinavians are not the origination of I1 anyways. L22 is the Scandi branch that came to dominate, but is a branch off a continental origination (based on current facts). Skull measurements are a ridiculous way to talk about genetics in modern times. Do Germanic people and Scandinavians have different heads? Did the Scandis completely bypass all of Europe and sail directly to Denmark? Autosomal genetics tell us no.
Sweden has the highest concentration of I1 in Europe, and the population also has the most dolichocephalic skulls in Europe. Before nationalism Europe was populated by clans which did not necessarily interbreed.



Who is "they" and what information are they using to offer this theory? Are I1 and I2 put back in the same group now?

"they" would be some scientists I don't remember the name of who proposed the theory in some science article. I think it's a prevailing theory though. I think I1 and I2 are believed to have co-existed in Europe as hunter-gatherers before the arrival of farmers.



My theory, which is probably common, is that blue eyes are pretty and were choice-selected rather than randomly selected due to genetic advantage.

That wasn't the point. Lets take lactose tolerance for example, did the milk drinkers commit genocide on those who didn't drink milk?



As for beneficial mutations, any of that is probably associated with the other chromosomes. Autosomally, we have I1 transforming from EEF to Germanic/Nordic, a completely different autosomal makeup (according to known samples, which are severely lacking). This would be similar to the R1b takeover of the Basques though, so there is precedent. Whoever got the DF29 mutation is the one who had some sort of genetic procreation superiority, not the previous I1.
If that was the case, wouldn't we see similar behavior in mtdna haplogroups?

I1a3_Young
22-06-17, 17:13
I'm talking about the I1 specific mutations as well. yfull lists 301 mutations unique to I1, but that is not for the entire Y chromosome, only about 13% of it. You presented it as if those 301 are all the mutations, which isn't the case.

I'm going with the known mutations publicly available. Do you have a list for the rest? That would make me very happy.



Sweden has the highest concentration of I1 in Europe, and the population also has the most dolichocephalic skulls in Europe. Before nationalism Europe was populated by clans which did not necessarily interbreed.

Swedes have square heads and have the highest concentration of I1. But that I1 is only one branch, and the other main branches did not originate from the Scandinavian branch. The Basques have among the highest R1b in Europe but it has been proven that it's not their original Y-DNA group, but one of Celtic/IE expansion. Look at any PCA chart of Europeans. The Swedes are not some special and magical branch. They cluster right by the Danes and Germans, the same as any other geographical neighbor in Europe. They did get BIG and they did become fearsome Vikings having mostly I1 Yhgs. After looking at the tree again and the estimated formation dates, check this out:

I1 (final mutation 4600 ybp) -> DF29 (4600 ybp)
West German -Z58 (4600 ybp) ->Z59 (4600 ybp)
German/East German -Z63 (4600 ybp)
Scandinavia -Z2236 (4600 ybp) -> L22 (4100 ybp)

There was rapid geographic expansion of major I1 branches. Being as Z63 is rarely found in Sweden and L22 is mostly confined to the north, we know that either one did not originate in the homeland of the other (at least in a significant population).

It seems to me that "Mr. DF29" may have been a powerful king and he had 3 sons (or brothers/grandsons) to rule three zones who were all prolific. Similar to Alexander's generals or Charlemagne's sons, or perhaps just three related tribes that had to spread out and were led by sons. The map on this site for Funnel Beaker culture looks like the zone we are interested in. The date range for it ends at 2650 B.C. That almost perfectly coincides with the formation of D29 and the "big 3" subclades. This is about the time of the Battle Axe culture and the Corded Ware as well. Somehow the "big 3" took advantage of these changes and came out on top.

The Scandinavian branch of I1 persisted and proliferated more but that may be due to R1A and R1B incursions on the mainland. For example, the Franks slaughtered a lot of Saxons. If the Saxons had held their ground would we see similar proportions of I1 in Germany as we do in Sweden?



"they" would be some scientists I don't remember the name of who proposed the theory in some science article. I think it's a prevailing theory though. I think I1 and I2 are believed to have co-existed in Europe as hunter-gatherers before the arrival of farmers.

It seems that the theory makes sense but that I1 was first found in an EEF population in Hungary. This leaves a lot of questions on the table. We don't have another good I1 sample for a very long time, and I'm looking them up as time allows.



That wasn't the point. Lets take lactose tolerance for example, did the milk drinkers commit genocide on those who didn't drink milk?

Lactase Persistance is a huge survival advantage. HUGE. This is completely different than eye pigmentation which as far as I know, doesn't grant any special abilities other than attracting mates based on beauty.



If that was the case, wouldn't we see similar behavior in mtdna haplogroups?

No, we see European populations get completely turned over on the Y-DNA side but retain mtDNA, such as the Basques.

Expredel
23-06-17, 02:19
I'm going with the known mutations publicly available. Do you have a list for the rest? That would make me very happy.
I don't think this information is available, and I have not been able to get a satisfying answer as to why, so we have to guess at the total number of mutations. You might be able to download a fully sequenced genome somewhere, but that would be around 6 GB of data, and it's my understanding that with "a fully sequenced genome" they mean fully except for the Y chromosome.



Swedes have square heads and have the highest concentration of I1. But that I1 is only one branch, and the other main branches did not originate from the Scandinavian branch. The Basques have among the highest R1b in Europe but it has been proven that it's not their original Y-DNA group, but one of Celtic/IE expansion. Look at any PCA chart of Europeans. The Swedes are not some special and magical branch. They cluster right by the Danes and Germans, the same as any other geographical neighbor in Europe. They did get BIG and they did become fearsome Vikings having mostly I1 Yhgs. After looking at the tree again and the estimated formation dates, check this out:

I1 (final mutation 4600 ybp) -> DF29 (4600 ybp)
West German -Z58 (4600 ybp) ->Z59 (4600 ybp)
German/East German -Z63 (4600 ybp)
Scandinavia -Z2236 (4600 ybp) -> L22 (4100 ybp)

There was rapid geographic expansion of major I1 branches. Being as Z63 is rarely found in Sweden and L22 is mostly confined to the north, we know that either one did not originate in the homeland of the other (at least in a significant population).

I don't think PCA diagrams accurately predict genetic similarity. Genetic traits are not smoothly distributed among Europeans. Take height for example, NW Europeans and Yugoslavians are the taller populations in Europe, it's undoubtedly genetic, and it's not evenly distributed among Europe. This either means it's Y-linked or that PCA diagrams measure very weak foreign genetic admixtures. Like swedes having 1% German admixture and 0.1% Italian admixture, so it's closer to Germany on a PCA map, but on the practical level Swedes would be as distinct from Germans as Italians. I'm no expert on PCA, but they never clarify the data.



It seems to me that "Mr. DF29" may have been a powerful king and he had 3 sons (or brothers/grandsons) to rule three zones who were all prolific. Similar to Alexander's generals or Charlemagne's sons, or perhaps just three related tribes that had to spread out and were led by sons. The map on this site for Funnel Beaker culture looks like the zone we are interested in. The date range for it ends at 2650 B.C. That almost perfectly coincides with the formation of D29 and the "big 3" subclades. This is about the time of the Battle Axe culture and the Corded Ware as well. Somehow the "big 3" took advantage of these changes and came out on top.
We'll probably never know. My best guess is that a young beautiful woman was one week pregnant when all the men in the village were slaughtered, an Indo-European king made her one of his concubines, and 9 months later he believed himself to have fathered a son. This son may then have taken 30 concubines of his own, one for every day of the month.



The Scandinavian branch of I1 persisted and proliferated more but that may be due to R1A and R1B incursions on the mainland. For example, the Franks slaughtered a lot of Saxons. If the Saxons had held their ground would we see similar proportions of I1 in Germany as we do in Sweden?

The Franks undoubtedly raped and pillaged their way through Germania, so it's a solid theory.



It seems that the theory makes sense but that I1 was first found in an EEF population in Hungary. This leaves a lot of questions on the table. We don't have another good I1 sample for a very long time, and I'm looking them up as time allows.
There's a gap of about 20,000 years.



Lactase Persistance is a huge survival advantage. HUGE. This is completely different than eye pigmentation which as far as I know, doesn't grant any special abilities other than attracting mates based on beauty.

It's curious that you have no problem with the importance of Lactase persistance which is 1 mutation, yet you find it hard to believe that I1 and R1b, each containing upwards of 3000 unique mutations, have no relevance on natural selection.



No, we see European populations get completely turned over on the Y-DNA side but retain mtDNA, such as the Basques.

Western Europe is dominated by 2 Y haplogroups that are 5000 years old. I'm quite sure that the Basque have over a dozen mtDNA haplogroups that are much older than that.

Argent
24-06-17, 21:08
So this mystery I1 survivor and progenitor....shall we call him I1 Abraham or I1 Ghengis Khan?

Or I1-Odin rather. ;)

Ukko
25-06-17, 00:30
Or I1-Odin rather. ;)


Btw, something unique was found 2015 in the middle of ancient Tavastia, an staff head depicting Odin used by an Völva was found from a well known ritual site on lake Pyhäjärvi (literally holy lake) that is part of the Vanaja basin of lakes and rivers comprising the core of the Tavastian settlements inland.



A vǫlva or völva (Old Norse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Norse) and Icelandic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_language), respectively; plural forms vǫlur and völvur), sometimes anglicized vala; also spákona or spækona) is a female shaman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism) and seer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet) in Norse religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_religion) and a recurring motif in Norse mythology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_mythology).


The vǫlur were referred to by many names. Old Norse vǫlva means "wand carrier" or "carrier of a magic staff",[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lva#cite_note-1) and it continues Proto-Germanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language) *walwōn, which is derived from a word for "wand" (Old Norse vǫlr).



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völva

Nothing like this has been found anywhere before.

I1a3_Young
27-06-17, 00:01
I saw a post here referencing something on another website that won't be named. It does check out according to other sources though, so I will post it.

Stora Förvar 11 - Gotland - 5500 BC was pre-I1

Here are the positive I1 calls. The calls leading up to I1 are all solid A, CT, F, IJ, I




I1-Z2805/CTS6629


I1-Z2802/CTS6221


I1-Z2792/CTS5887



I1-YSC0000301/Z2882


I1-Z2726


I1-Z2749/CTS1748


I1-Z2731























The original study didn't list the haplogroups but it was analyzed and verified by hobbyists like us and appears to be accurate. Maybe the lack of inclusion in the paper was the reason it's not mentioned on the official write-up on Eupedia?

Seems like pretty big news. This is about contemporary with BAB5 in Hungary and the beginning of farming in Scandinavia. The autosomal mix appears different as well.

I also came across (Angmollan - Sweden - 1400 BC) which is the first modern M253 that I've seen. That's quite a gap.

I'm now leaning on the presence of pre-I1 in hunter-gatherers who were mostly I2 but more rarely pre-I1. Most lines failed to survive but some were able to capitalize on the Neolithic expansion and Mr. DF29 was the really big genetic winner. This is not shocking but it was more about my personal way of rolling through the data and the theories. When there are so few samples, one additional sample can be absolutely huge!

Parafarne
09-08-17, 10:25
In my view we should not give mythical theories about R1b and IE invading western europe and rampaging, much importance, because its NOT TRUE.Even in the time of roman republic germanics were not able to fight others because they had no armies! so why we even talk about an IE army invading neolithic west europeans? In reality they were tribes trying to get more lands so the bigger R1b tribes at that time overwhelmed the natives and became the dominant ruling elite, so thats how they conquered w.europe - by overwhelming the natives - not by killing them and fighting them!

MOESAN
15-08-17, 00:17
In my view we should not give mythical theories about R1b and IE invading western europe and rampaging, much importance, because its NOT TRUE.Even in the time of roman republic germanics were not able to fight others because they had no armies! so why we even talk about an IE army invading neolithic west europeans? In reality they were tribes trying to get more lands so the bigger R1b tribes at that time overwhelmed the natives and became the dominant ruling elite, so thats how they conquered w.europe - by overwhelming the natives - not by killing them and fighting them!

very pacifist dream! In fact we can believe the reality has been a mix of colonization linked to strong demography but with some serious fighting; what contained elites tombs doesn't incline me to think they were pacific societies. Maybe in some place some decline in the preceding pops can have eased things. Concerning Germanics, they seemingly liked fight and even if (possibly, not proved) lacking regular army, they had more than only tea spoons by them.

Parafarne
16-08-17, 14:41
very pacifist dream! In fact we can believe the reality has been a mix of colonization linked to strong demography but with some serious fighting; what contained elites tombs doesn't incline me to think they were pacific societies. Maybe in some place some decline in the preceding pops can have eased things. Concerning Germanics, they seemingly liked fight and even if (possibly, not proved) lacking regular army, they had more than only tea spoons by them.
I agree in that Proto-IE's were very advanced technologicaly, they had superior metallurgy, horse chariots, only lacking organized army but since regional I1 haplogroup seem to explode in numbers and came to be associated early on as Germanic haplogroup so i think they must have accepted germanic overlordship and joined there tribal group without any largescale warfare , we see I2a largly outnumbered I1 pre-bronze age yet after 2500 bc I1 surpassed I2 as dominant west European branch of haplogroup I.So i believe there were some smallscale regional wars but not largscale warfare since europe were very sparsly populated in bronze age so there weren't any need for war.

MOESAN
18-08-17, 23:39
The post of yours I answered didn't speek precisely about Y-I1 -
concerning this precise point, I suppose contacts with Neolithic pops or neolithicized pops (CWC), rather this last one, gave Y-I1 the possibility to reinforce their demography; so when Y-R1b (for the most U106 block) came in contact with them they were numerous enough to resist them and maybe well adapted to the local climate and conditions what made them good allies; perhaps it permitted them to be incorporated in the R1b proto-Germanic moves whatever the direction (N>S/S>N)? I'm rather inclined to think they already had some CWC Y-R1a lineages among them too. But yes, the mix has not been immediate and level at first and there were tribes with different levels of respective Y-lineages.
Mix of lineages was eased I think when pops were geographically stabilized (for a time) not without skirmishes at first contacts; war was not always the first answer when meeting other pops: the Y-I1 were maybe rather fishers spite partly neolithicized and did not disturb the I-E R1b ex-Steppic tribes economy (herding for the most); the settling of the Netherlands by CWC seem having been pacific enough, these people leaving the better lands to the megalithic territories of TRBK people, at least for a time; it seems some times nomadic herders in Central Europe took only the lands proper to their economy without to destroy other settlements.

Parafarne
16-09-17, 13:06
I have few criterias that can explain the mystery surrounding I1 subclade:
- I1 Urheimat in Scandinavia.
- Spread of farming reached Scandinavia very late.
- I2 employed farming lifestyle much earlier than I1 resulting in higher population growth among I2.
- No ancient genetic data available for pre-farming revolution.
- In HG tribes population only replaces itself and population growth is extremely slow.
- Only until IE conquests that farming spread among I1 tribes, hence higher population growth from then on.
- I2 and G tribes suffered from IE migration because they held power(ruling class) so they became lower castes for decades because of IE domination of them, but smaller northern I1 tribes were fully integrated into Germanic tribal confideration and expanded then on.

twójstary
16-09-17, 16:25
The oldest sample of l1 was found in Hungary(BAB5, Balatonszemes, Bagó-domb) - It dates back to 5600-4900BC and it belonged to LBK/Lengyel Culture.

Parafarne
17-09-17, 05:07
Yes, and it just adds to the mystery isn't it? hg I seems to be very expansive throughout europe from east to west and north, but my theory is because Hunter Gathering requires more land than farming so thats why I1 had bigger geography yet less numbers. ancient dna seems to popup in urban sites, so maybe N.Europe had more I1 yet less urban areas.

O Neill
19-12-17, 16:39
Btw, something unique was found 2015 in the middle of ancient Tavastia, an staff head depicting Odin used by an Völva was found from a well known ritual site on lake Pyhäjärvi (literally holy lake) that is part of the Vanaja basin of lakes and rivers comprising the core of the Tavastian settlements inland.







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Völva

Nothing like this has been found anywhere before.

Thats amazing Im thinking sea nymph from the Odyssey
In my version odysseus was from Cadiz and troy in britain. so the ship wreak after the storm was in norway were he was seduced by a volva.
I like it :)

O Neill
19-12-17, 16:58
Yes, and it just adds to the mystery isn't it? hg I seems to be very expansive throughout europe from east to west and north, but my theory is because Hunter Gathering requires more land than farming so thats why I1 had bigger geography yet less numbers. ancient dna seems to popup in urban sites, so maybe N.Europe had more I1 yet less urban areas.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, they were nomadic and masters of the harsh climate alongside R1.
lets not forget the extreme changes in climate and sea level from 10000bc, well untill now, the seas is still rising today.

Olympus Mons
19-12-17, 17:02
....................

IronSide
20-12-17, 00:03
Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.

Nah, the one man theory, it sounds silly whenever I read it.

I also distance myself from this
R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake. I am agnostic on how this all happened, it could have been a plague, or nomadic invasions, or both.

I don't think I1 was a man that was "elevated" in some Bronze Age social hierarchy, the story of I1 I believe can be deduced from two basic facts: first it was found in Neolithic farmers from Hungary, and second its strong association with Germanic speakers, the Germanic language family are descended from a single Proto-Germanic language, the first community of Germanic speakers included a blend of both R1 and I1, descended from the Steppe and Neolithic central Europe respectively, this group then expanded to Scandinavia, I1 migrated from central Europe not as a single man, but a tribe with high levels of I1.

Then what happened to the pre-Germanic inhabitants of northern Europe ? again it could have been a plague, nomadic invasions, or a combination of both.

Zvrk9
07-01-18, 21:40
IronSide, your theory is very logical and likely the case of the I1 story.
Very nice initial question by I1a3 Young.
As for Iberians, taming horses may have helped them, but sadly, it was not enough for American (North and South) Indians.

Kaltmeister
18-08-18, 10:31
I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.

From 27,500 ybp to 4600 ybp, the population containing I1 males was isolated or "bottle necked." This is known because all I1 have about 300 of the same mutation which is radically different than the other ydna hgs that I've read about.

Okay, what about the first option that has not been discussed so far: "Isolation"?

It is imaginable that a small, homogenous population was isolated during the ice age and started a late expansion from its refugium. But does this go well with the I1-haplotree? Even if you assume an isolated population with few males, mutations will happen over thousands of years and the y-chromosome will start differentiation. Or how would we have to think this model?

Doggerland
18-08-18, 23:20
The biggest problem on this idea is in my opinion that there was no place where this population could have been living in isolation in Europe for a long time. The HGs needed wide trading and marriage networks to survive, and there had been many environmental and cultural changes since the Ice Age, most important ENF migration and integration of HG woman in farmer societies and HG tribes which changed to farming economy like Ertebölle, who had been integrated into Funnel Beaker culture.

If they will not be found in Mesolithic Northern Europe, Funnel Beaker or Steppe, its unlikely that they had any bigger meaning before the Corded Ware expansion. That would mean, that this one person was likely an cuckoo child of an Indoeuropean Chiefs wife, fathered by an „insignificant“ HG-guy or Farmer-guy.

As far as I know there was no M253 or Pre-I1 in Bell-Beaker, so it is unlikely that this lineage is from Southern or Western Europe.

Another option is that it was much earlier assimilated by Indoeuropean Tribes, somewhere near the Carpathians, this would match with the Balaton LBK sample from Hungary. Iron Side already suggested this.

More DNA is needed.

The theory about heroic resistance fighters, I don't believe it, so why would they then accept the foreign religion of the invaders and their burial customs, language and so on if they had won the fight against them?