Theory: I1 originally from Paloithic Cro magnon central Europe not Scandinavia

[nordicwarrior]

...We know G arrived with neolithic farmers who were recent arrivals, so that's out. The Is are mixed with r1b wherever the more ancient type is, so they were likely there, too. We haven't sampled any ancient hunter gatherers and we can't expect to find R or R1b before we do...

That's it? That's your proof? I can't even figure out if you meant "the more ancient type" would belong to I or R (pronoun overload). Well my friend, you've built yourself a beautiful house of cards. Don't spend to much on the furnishings...

 

[Nobody1]

That's it? That's your proof? I can't even figure out if you meant "the more ancient type" would belong to I or R (pronoun overload). Well my friend, you've built yourself a beautiful house of cards. Don't spend to much on the furnishings because a light wind will topple it right over...

Proof ? who needs Proof ?
If Noman says so than thats proof enough - no attached sources needed;
got that Mr. NOrdic queller ?

 

[Noman]

That's it? That's your proof? I can't even figure out if you meant "the more ancient type" would belong to I or R (pronoun overload). Well my friend, you've built yourself a beautiful house of cards. Don't spend to much on the furnishings...

What's it for what?

I have written a couple novels here at this point. Obviously r1b radiated out of iberia right after ice age. The reason I asked the question about what's supposed to be there, I already explained. It's because it shows the molecular clock is BS. So if (as wikipedia says) R is responsible for resettling eurasia, it would have been full of R at some point, and since then (during an expansion) it magically turned into r1b. But the molecular clock depends on the assumption there's no selection at work, and without selection that would not happen in an expansion.

Therefore the molecular clock assumption is wrong, and therefore the previous theory before the stupid clock estimate comes back, that r1b radiated out of iberia right after the ice age (and probably other places as well).

See the point now? The whole point is that the molecular clock estimate is wrong, makes no sense, is an impossibility. Since that's the only reason anyone said r1b didn't exist at beginning of ice age we can ditch this nonsense and get back to planet earth, reality.

So yeah, that's it, that's "all". Nothing more is needed to show this is possible. The proof obviously, is hunter gatherer DNA, which I am sure will eventually come about.

 

[nordicwarrior]

I don't buy into the molecular clock either. It can give us clues to ages, but it's not firm enough to hang a hat on-- not yet anyway. If your theory is correct, Europe should be littered with R1b remains. And it ain't.

 

[nordicwarrior]

What honks me off about Noman's fantasy is that there's a cabal of ultra-elite Celto R1b insiders following this same script. If and when the crews from the University of Edinburgh or the boys from Stanford find a "mysteriously" well-preserved 60,000 year old R1b fellow wrapped in corn husks on the Isle of Man-- I'm going to sit tight and wait for Svante Paabo and/or the scientist from Max Planck to weigh in and maybe dig a little deeper. Yeah, I said it. The politics and ego involved in y-DNA is humorous, sad, frustrating... all of the above.

 

[nordicwarrior]

**EDIT** Actually 60,000 years would be a bit too much and would collapse the whole Out of Africa concept. Let me adjust that to 30,000 years. Oh, and let's put him somewhere in frozen Scandinavia because I1 in the Nordic countries really seems to bother my Celtic cousins.

 

[Noman]

We haven't tested anything but the neolithic farmers that were doing their best to murder off all the hunter gatherers. It is in fact full of remains that might belong to r1b like from under stonehenge and a few similar sites. However no one bothers to test them, like I said.

In fact we only have results of a total of something like 50 neolithic people tested from all of europe, unless I have missed a lot somewhere. So it's a little early to call it a day.

What honks me off about Noman's fantasy is that there's a cabal of ultra-elite Celto R1b insiders following this same script. If and when the crews from the University of Edinburgh or the boys from Stanford find a "mysteriously" well-preserved 60,000 year old R1b fellow wrapped in corn husks on the Isle of Man-- I'm going to sit tight and wait for Svante Paabo and/or the scientist from Max Planck to weigh in and maybe dig a little deeper. Yeah, I said it. The politics and ego involved in y-DNA is humorous, sad, frustrating... all of the above.

Well if it makes you feel better I came to the conclusion on my own and am most probably not r1b (I will find out once full sequencing is cheap enough to justify doing it out of mere curiosity). I don't think 60k is needed or even 20k. Just find someone in Iberia at 5000 BC and we can put this this whole outside invasion crap on the garbage heap. The one where europe is practically speaking repopulated in the 500 years between the rise of the wheel and the beginning of recorded history. Who knows maybe I will have neadnerthal y-dna but most probably something of no excitement whatsoever.

And true if the wrong people find it, it could be suspect. That is why people poo poo everything to come out of china, but honestly very little of it comes from actual chinese people and most of it was from before the China Strong! talk of the last decade or so.

 

[Tabaccus Maximus]

First of all, whatever presence R1 has in Native American populations is probably in all actuality, R1b. It's not inconcievable that R1 came to America via some other mode than solely Western European and therefore upstream varieties or non-typical WE varities, like from West African slaves or people from the Med Sea.

The Spanish probably brought a wealth of R diversity given their own history and the more recent history leading up to 1496 when the Moors were finally expelled from Granada.

Also, people often forget that in the early days of Jamestown there were Armenians/Iranian/Turks and Pols. They were brought for the silk industry, or lack of, and disappeared into the population with racoon hats and one eyed dogs. Some of the first Spanish Floridians were Greek. That's the other history of the United States.
In essence, there is a high bar to leap to prove that any R1 exists in low frequency in the pre-Columbian Americas.

Having said that, if proven true, it would be sensational.

 

[Sile]

welp,so far I haven't read anything that make me think that i1 in northwest Europe isn't from Germanic migration.the title of the thread was about i1.it makes sense if it started in north central Europe then moved north,the snps kind of show that with the cts6364....I think

listen, I do not know why yourself and others deny about the existence of Baltic tribes/peoples. But logic dictates the area in question was neither Germanic nor Slavic. it was middle bronze-age period.
Below is a further article on I1 in old-prussia

Blue is question and red is reply by Ken

Hi Ken,

Up until now I have believed that I1 held a strong correlation with the
Nordic Bronze Age culture (before the Indo Europeans came) and that
significant numbers moved south into Germany and Poland giving rise to some
of the older clades we see there today. You are suggesting the opposite
approach is true where I1 groups from Germany and Poland moved north into
Jutland and beyond. My "Out of Jutland" observations are based on the fact
that there seem to be as many CTS6364* in Scandinavia as on the more densely
populated Old Prussia area and that modern Jutland appears to hold the most
I1 diversity. I realize too, that some of the older clades also have an
eastern bias like M227 and my own Z63 but that could be explained by
migrations in later times, no? Perhaps counter to your Prussian origin, we
have those DF29- folks that, although few, seem to have a more western axis
in Britain and the Low Countries with a Czech family in the mix. So my
question is what gives you the !
impression that the sequence is that Jutland was populated in significant
numbers second and the continent first if CTS6364* people seem to exist in
both and given diversity seems greater near Jutland than today's Pomerania?
For instance, do the CTS6364* Continentals appear more distantly related to
the CTS6364* Scandinavian. We all know you have vast knowledge on this
topic, but just want to know more.

Thanks
Paul

[[CTS6364+ is the gateway to both L22+ and a portion of L22- which includes
a couple more easterly Europe clades as well as an eastern Scandinavian
(Finn/Swede) clade. And the generic CTS6364+ L22- includes a robust cluster
from the ancient Old Prussia territory. The early clades of L22+ which are
Z74- show a transitional geographic territory which is not decisively
Scandinavian. And then throwing in the demographically robust Z63+
population with its eastern tendencies relative to Z58+ I1, and then
checking out the temporal order of the nodes to all these divisions of I1,
it leads me to think the earliest I1 populations which started to flourish
only about 4500 years ago were more easterly than Holstein area. More like
Pomerania or Prussia. But I don't think we can bet the ranch on any of
these scenarios yet.

Scandinavia probably was populated by multiple migrations, bringing
different types of I1 as well as other haplogroups at different times into
Scandinavia. And Jutland being one of the links, its diversity if unusually
large which I don't really know is the case, could very well be explained by
its location as compared to deep Scandinavia which is more like a
geographical cul de sac. Denmark actually is quite sparse in representing
the deep Scandinavian clades; I think there was negligible " back migration"
from Sweden or Norway.

The deep-in-Scandinavia clades and subhaplogroups of I1 L22+ are later
(Z74+) branch lines of the tree, and are the best bets for founders having
lived solidly up in Scandinavia. These populations also show younger
tmrcas.

Only in old familiar Europe with all its boundaries and present day
"countries" or cantons of the EU would we be "debating" Jutland versus
Holstein versus Pomerania as a place of origin 4500 years ago. How few
hours could one drive from one end to the other of this small region? KN]]


See:
"Tree for I1xL22xZ58"
"Tree for I1 Z58+ Z60-"
"Tree for I1 Z60+"
"Tree for I1 L22+"
"Tree for M223 x Z161"
"Tree for M223+ Z161+"
"Tree and Map for haplogroup I"
"The I1 modalities"
"The M223+ Modalities"


at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

 

[nordicwarrior]

...In fact we only have results of a total of something like 50 neolithic people tested from all of europe, unless I have missed a lot somewhere. So it's a little early to call it a day...

So you're 0 for 50. At least you've got spunk-- or maybe a hard head? And about this Neolithic farmer massacre, look at any color coded European haplogroup map and glance over hg. I vs. hg G (or hg. E or J). That comment is pure nonsense.

 

[Noman]

So you're 0 for 50. At least you've got spunk-- or maybe a hard head? And about this Neolithic farmer massacre, look at any color coded European haplogroup map and glance over hg. I vs. hg G (or hg. E or J). That comment is pure nonsense.

It's like looking for russian fishermen at 50 german dentist's offices and giving up because you didn't find any, or rather looking at 50 people in 3 german dentist's offices and only two are russian fishermen.

http://hauridna.com/haplogroups/haplogroup-g/

Sources seem to agree that g comes out of caucas or anatolia. Now the etruscans were probably mostly G and they believed they came from anatolia, and their cattle has anatolian DNA.

They are spread pretty thin to start with which is why they have more or less disappeared in modern times.

Among those neolithic farmers (most all of them come from one site in france where we expected to find G) there's a handful of I, maybe 10%. There's also a handful of I in ever single area that didn't become part of the bell beaker megaculture. And right by all the megalithic sites. This implies that the I were generally spread into the r1b HG and to the neolithic farmers who were in scattered communities and not ever the majority.

We basically know that the G ane e1b came in around neolithic time and introduced farming.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/05/ancient-y-chromosome-studies.html

If there's any other studies let me know but here's a rundown on what we have.

Neolithic Linearbandkeramik from Derenburg [2 F*(xG,H,I,J,K), 1 G2a3] (5,500–4,900 cal B.C)

Neolithic Spain [5 G2a, 1 E-V13] (5000 BC)

Neolithic Ötzi from the Alps [G2a4] (3300 BC)
Prehistoric South Siberians from Krasnoyarsk and here [10 R1a1, 1 C(xC3)]

Neolithic southwestern France from Treilles [20 G2a, 2 I2a] (3000 BC)
Neolithic Megalithic France from la Pierre Fritte [2 I2a1]
Neolithic Bell Beaker from Kromsdorf Germany [2 R1b] (2800-200 BC)
Bronze Age from Tarim basin in Xiaohe [7 R1a1a]
Eneolithic Corded Ware Germans [3 related R1a]

Bronze Age Lichtenstein Cave in Germany [estimated presence I1b2*, R1a1, R1b1c] (2000 BC)

Ancient Mongolian Xiongnu [1 R1a1]
Aboriginals from Canary Islands [E-M78, E-M81, J-M267, E-M33, I-M170, K-M9, P-M45, R-M269] (200 BC-500 AD)
Late Antique Basques [4 I, 2 R1b3d, 19 R1(xR1a1), 2 R-M173] (600-700 AD)
Late Antique Imperial Roman from Bavaria [2 R1b, 2 I1, 2 E1b1b, 2 I1/G2a] (700 AD)
Medieval Germans from Ergolding, Bavaria, Germany [4 R1b (two siblings), 2 G2a] (700 AD)

Medieval Germans (?) from Usedom, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany [E1b1b, R1a1a7]

Medieval Swedes from Stockholm [2 I1, probably related]





So far as I know that's all the DNA remotely relavent and then some.

First off we see tons of r1a, looks like it's been all over the place and then some. If anything it's lost some ground not been gaining (which unlike what some say is what we should expect to see).

Then we see that r1b is all over, too.

The only standouts are at one study in france we didn't expect to find any r1b anyway, which accounts for 22 of the less than 50 neolithics we have tested, and one in spain where we would hope to find r1b but didn't. Then we get 2/2 r1b in bell beaker 5k years ago. So when you put it in those terms it's not as bad as it sounds especially since everything in BC times is full of r1b. Especially since again, the DNA found with the other two sites is associated with the inland route of farming. Spain is at least as concerned about nationalism as greece, and in all likelihood will be splintering apart, so no surprise they choose a safe bet. I am guessing if they find/choose more HG and nomad sites they will get more r1b, but aside from site selection I believe they are hard to find as well.

Now since you were humorously talking of elite edinburgh r1bs, think of who many of the Gs are. They are the ones deciding who gets funded in the first place. They could care less about finding filthy commoner DNA and if anything would rather none is found so as not to give anyone the idea that they had some kind of claim to their own land.

 

[Noman]

And also another r1b in lichtenstein forgot that one, 2000bc. So so far half the sites have r1b. Two out of four sites. And we shouldn't expect to find r1b in the inland route farmers. So picture is not that grim. Also there is r1b around time of christ in the canaries so it's hard to see how it's there and in maykop or wherever it's supposed to be coming into existence at the same time unless it was ubiquitous at some point.

Just give one berber with r1b at 1000 bc or sooner and it's sewn up. BTW let's not forget tuetenkhaman was r1b. They also sacrified redheads, which had to come from somewhere.

I'd like to see some trojan dna, too. If we have an ancient berber, a trojan and a pharoh as r1b then it's been ubiquitous in eurasia since pretty much forever.

Dieneke also has a comment that would do well for some of the sillier pedantics out there:

This highlights the need to avoid Y-STR based calculations on modern populations for inferring patterns of ancient history, and not to conflate TMRCAs with "dates of arrival": "In short: a particular TMRCA is consistent with either the arrival of the lineage long before and long after the TMRCA in a particular geographical area."

It's a quote of him quoting the paper. Basically don't take these stupid clock estimates seriously.

 

[Noman]

First of all, whatever presence R1 has in Native American populations is probably in all actuality, R1b. It's not inconcievable that R1 came to America via some other mode than solely Western European and therefore upstream varieties or non-typical WE varities, like from West African slaves or people from the Med Sea.

The Spanish probably brought a wealth of R diversity given their own history and the more recent history leading up to 1496 when the Moors were finally expelled from Granada.

Also, people often forget that in the early days of Jamestown there were Armenians/Iranian/Turks and Pols. They were brought for the silk industry, or lack of, and disappeared into the population with racoon hats and one eyed dogs. Some of the first Spanish Floridians were Greek. That's the other history of the United States.
In essence, there is a high bar to leap to prove that any R1 exists in low frequency in the pre-Columbian Americas.

Having said that, if proven true, it would be sensational.

This is old news I just forgot about it. But many tribes came across not all that long ago. There's even I found in south america tribes that we're pretty sure are untouched.

 

[nordicwarrior]

So the earliest R1b is Neolithic Bell Beaker Kromsdorf... at 2800B.C.-- kind of what the standard models would tell us, right? You should review Maciamo's list of royalty (with associated haplogroups) before making the statement that hg. G offspring are European shot-callers. Maybe a few hundred years ago... the Western World has been under the thumb of a very limited R1b clan for some time now. Plus I love how you say "sources seem to agree"... since when do you ever pay attention to sources?

 

[sparkey]

First off humans are closer to gorillas anyway, which should be obvious.

http://www.nature.com/news/gorilla-joins-the-genome-club-1.10185

About 15% closer.

I finally got a source on Noman's claim that humans are closer to gorillas than to chimps! And... it's a Nature article on Scally 2012, as I suspected. You know, Scally 2012, the study that showed that 15% of the human genome is closer to gorillas, and the rest is closer to chimps.

Noman, that result doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

[Nobody1]

Also there is r1b around time of christ in the canaries so it's hard to see how it's there and in maykop or wherever it's supposed to be coming into existence at the same time unless it was ubiquitous at some point.

the study actually clearly states:

The origin and prevalence of the prehispanic settlers of the Canary Islands has attracted great multidisciplinary interest. However, direct ancient DNA genetic studies on indigenous and historical 17th-18th century remains, using mitochondrial DNA as a female marker, have only recently been possible. In the present work, the analysis of Y-chromosome polymorphisms in the same samples, has shed light on the way the European colonization affected male and female Canary Island indigenous genetic pools, from the conquest to present-day times.

Didnt know Jesus was still alive 300-400 years ago;

So when you put it in those terms it's not as bad as it sounds especially since everything in BC times is full of r1b.

Those "BC times" is the Chalcolithic (or Eneolithic) and therefore it looks very bad and grim concerning your wild claims since the Chalcolithic (BC) occurs after the Neolithic (BC);

But dont bother about a documented time-line; your theories arent about factual history anyways;


PS: Most of those studies you have compiled from Dienekies were already posted by Me [post #116] and Sparkey [post #125]
And None prove your point; maybe post them again on page 8; but i doubt things will change on page 8 as well;

 

[Noman]

So the earliest R1b is Neolithic Bell Beaker Kromsdorf... at 2800B.C.-- kind of what the standard models would tell us, right?

I can see this is pointless arguing with you.

If we get some bell beaker in the south with a large sample that are all I and get some r1b in far east then that's what I expect to see to confirm the crazy invisible migration theory.

Otherwise, no, that's exactly what I expect to prove my case. But to really prove it would take some iberian r1b as well, bonus points for an ancient berber or anatolian. Since nobody has tested/found any southern bell beaker bones then no conclusion can be drawn there. But if r1b is really so recent there must be a heck of a story behind it to account for all the places its spread that are unnacountable in historic time and unrelated to IE language.

You should review Maciamo's list of royalty (with associated haplogroups) before making the statement that hg. G offspring are European shot-callers. Maybe a few hundred years ago... the Western World has been under the thumb of a very limited R1b clan for some time now. Plus I love how you say "sources seem to agree"... since when do you ever pay attention to sources?

I pay attention to sources a lot more than you obviously, if you don't know that. Sometimes I do reject them, especially if they are not archaeologists and come to a conclusion I know is impossible on those grounds, or make a basic logic error as is often the case. You also didn't know of these studies all of which I have followed closely or you would not say 0/50 flippantly like that.

I have seen that thread maybe a year ago. I also saw maseiamo state in another thread there's no known dna for any medieval kings.

However he capetian line is all G. If you know geneology you could infer quite a few others are G as well from that.

If it turns out habsburgs are r1b then sure that's the case but if so it's a pretty new development, and unless that is the case then I have to call shenanigans, not true. And I don't expect the freakish melonheads and jutting chins of the habsburgs to turn out to be r1b, though anything is possible. By looks I'd say E1b or G but it's hard to say.

edit:looks like they found a few more r1b but they are all relatively recent and not the ones I'd really be interested in, whether for historic times or because they run anything today.

 

[sparkey]

Noman, do you accept my debunking of your claim that humans are closer to gorillas than to chimps? Failing to do so will say a lot about your personality and motives.

 

[Noman]

Noman, do you accept my debunking of your claim that humans are closer to gorillas than to chimps? Failing to do so will say a lot about your personality and motives.

I haven't read anything you've said for several posts, just like nobody1. Sorry but I don't care about the opinion of people who sit there and call me an idiot and show they don't have basic manners, and who can't debate using logic instead of polemics. Especially if they then abuse their mod authority to give me an infraction for doing the same in a more polite manner. Now if you gave an infraction to all those people then I applaud your hoesty, but I know you didn't.

You show yourself out as a petty emotional being deviod of logic like most of humanity. That's 'what kind of person' you are.

Science is not the same as scholarship and you have already shown you don't know what scientific method is about so frankly nothing you say has any value whatsoever.

But no I would not accept anyone saying that without some actual data behind it, not just genetic but archaeological as well. Even if you were to somehow make an infallible case that human-chimp ancestor exists which is more modern than a human-gorilla ancestor the only human chimp ancestor as recent as 7 million years, the only one in africa, is extremely sketchy. Probably even sketchier than the idea that homo sapiens evolved primarily from rhodiensis which for the reasons I stated and more, I see as absolutely busted.

If you knew the history of where the 7 million years figure came from then you'd realize both what crap molecular clock is and what crap the idea that this fossil is a human chimp ancestor is. I expect to see it at more like 20 million years. Just like ebamerican you have just stumbled on this crap recently, now you put 20 minutes of thought into it and think you will debunk the guy that has been saying this would be the result for something like 20 years now.

When you manage to make serious predictions on your own and not parrot stuff you heard from others, then maybe I will listen to something you have to say.

In ten years you will be telling some guy how you knew all along humans were closer to chimps, and the next clown like you will be telling me how stupid I am for the next theory I have. I know because I can been through this cycle my whole life, over and over and over like the twilight zone.

In short I am happy with what I wrote towards ebamerican, and it took me a long time, and I don't really care about your opinion. So, you can like it or lump it. The IE dispute is a different story, I think the article on eupedia should be labeling "r1b genoicide of indigenous peoples, as told by the European Union ministry of propaganda" and I don't think it follows any accepted pattern of how IE language spread. I don't doubt migrations took place but certainly not in this crazy manner, and indeed the studies on r1a show r1a has been right where it is for some time now, which I expect will eventually be shown for r1b.

So people can choose at this point which they think makes more sense, and obviously you and nobody1 are far in one camp and I am in another. People like nordicquarreler don't agree but obviously have some sense and can entertain new ideas but after a certain point there's no reason to hash over the same spartan data set in hopes of making a point. Perhaps some other people reading along may find my thoughts interesting and use them as a starting point for their own theories.

 

[nordicwarrior]

F.H., I don't always agree with your viewpoints, but I'd like to take this time to let you know that your effort to improve grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc. have gone a long way toward making you a novice scholar here on Eupedia. You have a logical approach and your knowledge of historical tribes is impressive for someone your age. I think your intellect has been sharpened by participating in these threads... like a knife that's been cared for by a skilled chef. Noman, I feel like I'm talking to a hammer during our exchanges. No offense sir, but you aren't that much smarter than the average bear-- although you talked a good game initially. Come to the table with some solid evidence and you might find a warm reception. Until then, maybe chill out, read some more posts, do deeper research, and work on having some humility. Rant off.