Just the opposite (R1a, R1b, IE)

[Tomenable]

Which non-IE tribes in Iberia? I don't believe there are any.

Before the Roman conquest, half of Iberian population (if not more) were Non-IE tribes.

They only became IE-speakers after they adopted Latin language during Roman rules.

Norway, if I remember correctly, has the highest steppe admixture in Europe

European Russia has the highest, but some people don't consider Russia as part of Europe.

 

[berun]

European Russia has the highest, but some people don't consider Russia as part of Europe.

That's very interesting in equate R1a = IE, can you provide the source?

If so it would be another flaw for steppe / IE / R1b, and taking into account that some months ago I was a mean "steppic" believer the number of flaws are so many that I can't realize well why only Klyosov is getting the track; by scientific inertia or by fear to be out of the mainstream?

 

[Athiudisc]

In "Excavating past population structures by surname-based sampling: the genetic legacy of the Vikings in northwest England" results for Norway were 30/201 R1b and 35/201 R1a. For Iceland it was a medieval Viking colony. Scotland as Norway based much of their economies on herding so that Y-DNA IE herders would impact more there (if you take per example results from Sweden its R1a doubles R1b...); even more Scotland, was settled by Vikings also. For Lithuania it was a farmer country (high density... so more difficult to change Y-DNA) but R1a is high there.

I was simply drawing from Eupedia's own page on the subject (a bit lazy, I know), where in every country you just mentioned (save Lithuania), R1b is more common that R1a.

Norway: 32% R1b, 25.5% R1a
Iceland: 42% R1b, 23% R1a
Scotland: 72.5% R1b, 8.5% R1a
Sweden: 21.5% R1b, 16% R1a

I would note that the sample size for these results is around five times greater than the paper you mentioned, for Norway, specifically.

Of course, but the question would be to follow the reasoning: other than R1a and R1b brothers were by 20000 years in the same spot of let say 1000000 km2, R1b or R1a must have learned IE from his bro... and we know that the steppe people were already a mixed population... so R1a or R1b must have learned IE.

Why couldn't they both have been involved in the formation of PIE? I still don't understand your insistence that it had to have been one or the other.

Of course there are any, but there were; by memory: cerretani, ausetani, indigetani, ilergetani, sedetani, edetani, contestani, bastetani, cessetani, laietani, laketani, ilauragetani... all such tribes used Iberian language (non-IE) inscriptions. Actual steppe ancestry in Spaniards may come from Celts, Romans and European colonizers in the Reconquista.

Before the Roman conquest, half of Iberian population (if not more) were Non-IE tribes.

They only became IE-speakers after they adopted Latin language during Roman rules.

So, like I said, there aren't any. All are generally R1b-dominant and IE-speaking, with the obvious exception of the Basques, who are non-IE but predominantly R1b with very little R1b diversity. I fail to see how this is in any way a "red alarm" against the connection between R1b and IE.

Am I missing something obvious? Do we have a bunch of pre-IE Iberian remains that are R1b?

can you give the source for such info? take into account that an individual from Calcholithic Iberia from 3500 BC to have steppe ancestry would change absolutely everything about what it is supposed to be such "steppe ancestry"...

It was discussed here at http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...thic-El-Portalon-samples-(Günther-at-al-2015)

One remarkable finding was that the so-called ATP3 individual, who lived circa 3516–3362 BCE, belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b1a2-M269, the main lineage of the contemporaneous Yamna culture (3600-2000 BCE) at the other extremity of Europe.

ATP3 belongs to mtDNA lineage of potential Indo-European origin: K1a2b, which is found mostly in northern Europe and Iran nowadays. ATP20 is U5a1c, a lineage now found mostly around the Baltic (Germany, Poland, Lithuania). All the other maternal lineages are typical of Iberia.

Unfortunately, the paper didn't report the admixtures for ATP3 and ATP20. But I just found that Genetiker ran the admixtures for all samples and that is extremely interesting.

Most samples are predominantly Southern European (ATP17=66.7%, Matojo=64.88%, ATP7=63.4%, ATP16=62.6%, ATP9=51.8%, ATP2=46.8%), except ATP3 and ATP20 who who have considerably less (ATP3=32.47% and ATP20=33.03%) as if they had been recently hybridized and only had half of the Iberian ancestry of other samples.

Both ATP3 and ATP20 have a higher percentage of Northern European and European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, with an combined average of 20.5% and 23% respectively. Only ATP9 has more (32%).ATP3 (3516–3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.

In conclusion, it seems pretty clear from the autosomal analysis that ATP3 is ethnically different from other samples from Chalcolithic El Portalon, and is not a native inhabitant of Neolithic Iberia, but a recent Copper Age immigrant, although how he got there remains unclear.

I would, of course, point out that Genetiker's conclusions regarding the data were a bit different, as he's a proponent of an "R1b isn't IE/R1b is native to Europe" theory somewhat similar to yours.

European Russia has the highest, but some people don't consider Russia as part of Europe.

I honestly didn't remember Russia in the list of results I recalled. Thanks. Source?

That's very interesting in equate R1a = IE, can you provide the source?

If so it would be another flaw for steppe / IE / R1b

Again, I don't see how. Explain, please.

 

[berun]

Norway: 32% R1b, 25.5% R1a
Iceland: 42% R1b, 23% R1a
Scotland: 72.5% R1b, 8.5% R1a
Sweden: 21.5% R1b, 16% R1a

You may add up Estonia with 32% R1a + 8% R1b as it has more Yamnaya DNA than Iceland, Scotland or Sweden... By the way as Yamnaya is a mix between EHG + CHG... it wouldn't be that such all tables are missing the ancient indigenous EHG factor ? As EHG is a subclade of WHG it's good to check in Eupedia: "Nowadays this admixture peaks among the Estonians (49.5%), Finns (47%), Lithuanians (46.5%), Icelanders (45.5%) and Orcadians (45.5%).", what a coincidence so... BUT as Yamnayans were half EHG / half CHG, if we assign per example to Lithuanians half of their DNA to Yamanyans we would make a gross errour (!!!) if they haven't the other half CHG.

Why couldn't they both have been involved in the formation of PIE? I still don't understand your insistence that it had to have been one or the other.

Well, Paleolithic R1b was found in the Alps, 3 Mesolithic R1a were found in North Russia, and Neolithic R1b-V88 was found in the Pyrenees... what is doubtful that they speak a related language; so R1a abd R1b had diverse languages in the Mesolithic and it is necessary to verify first that R1b and R1a were together in the same area in the Mesolithic to develop IE, otherwise one or the other was a Neolithic migrant (and as R1b is linked to the Fertile Crescent and Yamnaya received a southern migration of Caucasians, the guess is for R1b). Maybe I can't explain so well such complexity.

So, like I said, there aren't any. All are generally R1b-dominant and IE-speaking, with the obvious exception of the Basques, who are non-IE but predominantly R1b with very little R1b diversity. I fail to see how this is in any way a "red alarm" against the connection between R1b and IE.

As said the case for Basques being high in R1b and scarce in Yamnaya DNA is the red alarm. Other Iberian populations may have received much or less steppe DNA from Celts, Visigoths, Romans, Frenchs and so, but now I doubt that all DNA assigned to Yamnaya came from them or a descendent population.

ATP3 (3516–3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.

Ok, I see from where your "Yamnayans" came, and as thought, if the CHG DNA was already among Calcolithic Iberian herders EVEN BEFORE Yamnayans time and their own IE language, then you can look which value have the admixtures made about Yamnayans for actual populations or Basques.

Again, I don't see how. Explain, please.

Thinking now that R1a was the developper of IE, the fact that Russians would be high in "Yamnaya DNA" would favour such thinking as they are high in R1a also.

 

[Tomenable]

Am I missing something obvious? Do we have a bunch of pre-IE Iberian remains

Yes, you are missing that Iberian population is largely descended from those people.

What did you think - that Roman settlers replaced the native population? ROTFL.

They speak a Romance language, but just like Afro-Americans speak English.

 

[Tomenable]

That's very interesting in equate R1a = IE, can you provide the source?

Sources are all over the internet. Look at data from various autosomal calculators.

I honestly didn't remember Russia in the list of results I recalled.

Because it wasn't included. Neither was Poland and 90% of all European countries included.

But generally North-Eastern Europeans and Scandinavians have the highest % of Steppe ancestry.

When you look at former Corded Ware culture area, it's the same area which has high % of Steppe now.

 

[Tomenable]

As for R1b - we don't even know if R1b-U106 and R1b-P312 migrated along the same route.

So far, only P312 has been found in ancient DNA from Bell Beaker culture, and not any U106.

Definitely R1a and R1b-U106 together correlate better with Steppe autosomal, than R1b-P312.

Even I1 and some subclades of I2 and N1c correlate better with Steppe autosomal, than P312.

 

[Athiudisc]

You may add up Estonia with 32% R1a + 8% R1b as it has more Yamnaya DNA than Iceland, Scotland or Sweden...

Barely. They also don't speak an Indo-European language, much like Hungarians...high in R1a, compared to R1b, with more Yamnaya ancestry than, say, Ukrainians...

R1a abd R1b had diverse languages in the Mesolithic and it is necessary to verify first that R1b and R1a were together in the same area in the Mesolithic to develop IE, otherwise one or the other was a Neolithic migrant (and as R1b is linked to the Fertile Crescent and Yamnaya received a southern migration of Caucasians, the guess is for R1b).

I think you're pushing PIE back a bit far in service to your theory. The consensus at present seems to be that Indo-European was the product of the Neolithic into the Chalcolithic, in which case the idea of R1a and R1b forming it together makes complete sense. Why do you believe R1a formed it independently before absorbing R1b from the south? What evidence is there to suggest that? I would argue that because PIE had such concepts as agriculture, wheels and seafaring from the south coupled with more northerly words for environment and fauna, it's rather obvious that PIE as a tongue was the product of both peoples, coming together, or forming a sprachbund over a large, mixed area that coalesced before splitting apart. Absolutely no need nor reason to restrict it to one or the other.

As said the case for Basques being high in R1b and scarce in Yamnaya DNA is the red alarm. Other Iberian populations may have received much or less steppe DNA from Celts, Visigoths, Romans, Frenchs and so, but now I doubt that all DNA assigned to Yamnaya came from them or a descendent population.

A red alarm regarding your red alarm is the low diversity of R1b amongst Basques. Further, Basques have as much Yamnaya ancestry as Greeks, Albanians, Iberians of Romano-Celtic descent...

Ok, I see from where your "Yamnayans" came, and as thought, if the CHG DNA was already among Calcolithic Iberian herders EVEN BEFORE Yamnayans time and their own IE language, then you can look which value have the admixtures made about Yamnayans for actual populations or Basques.

The problem is that it wasn't among Chalcolithic Iberian herders, plural. It was found, with the example of ATP3, in an autosomally and patrilineally-distinct individual with obvious ancestry elsewhere. It's a red alarm regarding your red alarm.

Thinking now that R1a was the developper of IE, the fact that Russians would be high in "Yamnaya DNA" would favour such thinking as they are high in R1a also.

It's not that simple, though. You're looking for evidence after making your conclusion rather than making a conclusion based on evidence. To put it another way, if for some bizarre reason I wanted to argue that both R1a and R1b were Indo-Europeanized by someone else, I could tell you that Udmurts have even more Yamnaya ancestry than Russians, despite being dominated by Y-haplogroup N, and that, oddly-enough, other groups with relatively high-Yamnaya ancestry...Estonians and Lithuanians...actually have more N than R1a! Doesn't that favor thinking that despite the sum of all the other evidence, Yamnaya ancestry has some ancient connection to N, and R1a and R1b were simply influenced by them?

Of course it doesn't. But that's what you're doing with R1b, save in relation to R1a.

 

[Athiudisc]

Yes, you are missing that Iberian population is largely descended from those people.

What did you think - that Roman settlers replaced the native population? ROTFL.

Your ROFLing is a bit premature. "Largely descended from" autosomally is not the same as related lines of uniparental markers. Further, at least half of Iberia was speaking Indo-European languages prior to the Roman expansion. Are you suggesting this was a linguistic spread without population movement? Perhaps an adoption to facilitate the spread of Indo-European technology as well?

They speak a Romance language, but just like Afro-Americans speak English.

This would be a fine point if Romance languages were the sum of Indo-European tongues.

As for R1b - we don't even know if R1b-U106 and R1b-P312 migrated along the same route.

I tend to think not, after a certain point. Are you familiar with Iain McDonald's work in this area?

 

[Tomenable]

and Lithuanians...actually have more N than R1a!

Only according to Eupedia's table.

According to Kasperaviciute et al., "Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA variation in Lithuanians", they have more R1a than N1c. There is also regional variation within Lithuania - N1c is most common near the sea. The more inland you go, the more R1a there is.

Here is this paper: http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/library/papers/Kasperaviciute2004.pdf

One region of Lithuania has 62% of R1a and one has 35%, but the average nationwide frequency is 45%.

So it matters where you collect your samples. Maybe Eupedia used samples from low-R1a regions.

 

[Athiudisc]

Only according to Eupedia's table.

According to Kasperaviciute et al., "Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA variation in Lithuanians", they have more R1a than N1c. There is also regional variation within Lithuania - N1c is most common near the sea. The more inland you go, the more R1a there is.

I thank you, but the samples Maciamo compiled are at least twice as large and (I would hope) more recent than 2003. Still, the regional variation is interesting.

 

[Tomenable]

but the samples Maciamo compiled are at least twice as large

Yet he provides no info on regional breakdown. And therefore I can't be sure that his sample is representative. As I wrote, there are large regional differences. We also don't know which Lithuanian regional group has the highest percent of Steppe admixture.

As for R1a vs. R1b in Norway and Sweden - I have seen such samples where R1a was more numerous than R1b.

 

[Athiudisc]

Fair enough. It was only important as an illustration, though, not as a point of debate.

 

[berun]

I think you're pushing PIE back a bit far in service to your theory. The consensus at present seems to be that Indo-European was the product of the Neolithic into the Chalcolithic, in which case the idea of R1a and R1b forming it together makes complete sense. Why do you believe R1a formed it independently before absorbing R1b from the south? What evidence is there to suggest that? I would argue that because PIE had such concepts as agriculture, wheels and seafaring from the south coupled with more northerly words for environment and fauna, it's rather obvious that PIE as a tongue was the product of both peoples, coming together, or forming a sprachbund over a large, mixed area that coalesced before splitting apart.

The PIE Language itself can give you the answers: flora and fauna as you know points to a forested area, the Russian north , where you will find also Mesolithic R1a, and such language created derived words for wheel or for yoke from the core language. When southerners arrived to the PIE homeland PIE people already were working hard. For seafaring therms... you might give some example as i have not heard none...

A red alarm regarding your red alarm is the low diversity of R1b amongst Basques. Further, Basques have as much Yamnaya ancestry as Greeks, Albanians, Iberians of Romano-Celtic descent...

The matter is that Basques speak a non IE language, are high in R1b, and have very scarce tracks of Yamnaya ancestry (which even could come to them after two millenia living with neighbours). For R1b diversity you will find out it in Anatolia...

The problem is that it wasn't among Chalcolithic Iberian herders, plural. It was found, with the example of ATP3, in an autosomally and patrilineally-distinct individual with obvious ancestry elsewhere. It's a red alarm regarding your red alarm.

By memory ATP3 was who rated higher in CHG among other three neighbours... Ancestry from elsewhere is not a problem with me in such time, as we have not yet Atlantic ancient DNA (paleo, meso, neo, calco), but it's a problem with you or those defending Yamnaya DNA there before Yamnaya itself.

You're looking for evidence after making your conclusion rather than making a conclusion based on evidence.

Well, in fact it is what i see all days when reading about steppe DNA so and so.

To put it another way, if for some bizarre reason I wanted to argue that both R1a and R1b were Indo-Europeanized by someone else, I could tell you that Udmurts have even more Yamnaya ancestry than Russians, despite being dominated by Y-haplogroup N, and that, oddly-enough, other groups with relatively high-Yamnaya ancestry...Estonians and Lithuanians...actually have more N than R1a! Doesn't that favor thinking that despite the sum of all the other evidence, Yamnaya ancestry has some ancient connection to N, and R1a and R1b were simply influenced by them?

Then at least I could say that as Udmurts and Estonians speak Uralic languages their N "Asiatic" haplo is an evidence from a late elite language change.

 

[Athiudisc]

The PIE Language itself can give you the answers: flora and fauna as you know points to a forested area, the Russian north

Russian south, I'd rather say, judging by the breadth of vocabulary.

When southerners arrived to the PIE homeland PIE people already were working hard.

You don't know that R1a was PIE without R1b. You're simply continuing to assume it. The fact seems to be that by the time PIE was a thing, R1b-M269 was already there, and to date was the most common haplogroup in Yamna that we know of.

For seafaring therms... you might give some example as i have not heard none...

I'll grant that the word for "sea" might have actually described a smaller body of water, but if you can think of something else one does beyond water-travel when rowing (we still use this word's descendants in English, Frisian, Dutch, etc.) a boat (plowós), share it.

The matter is that Basques speak a non IE language, are high in R1b, and have very scarce tracks of Yamnaya ancestry (which even could come to them after two millenia living with neighbours).

Which is very easily attributable to founder effect, in contrast to the populations high in R1b that speak an Indo-European language and have more steppe ancestry. One wouldn't expect Basques to have high amounts of Yamnaya if their Y-DNA lines are the product of a relatively small group of men from thousands of years ago.

By memory ATP3 was who rated higher in CHG among other three neighbours... Ancestry from elsewhere is not a problem with me in such time, as we have not yet Atlantic ancient DNA (paleo, meso, neo, calco), but it's a problem with you or those defending Yamnaya DNA there before Yamnaya itself.

No, it's really not. As I've pointed out, it fits rather nicely.

 

[berun]

Russian south, I'd rather say, judging by the breadth of vocabulary.

I think that if you would wait to see in the steppe a bear or an squirel, or to see how it grows a fir you will expend all your live...

You don't know that R1a was PIE without R1b. You're simply continuing to assume it. The fact seems to be that by the time PIE was a thing, R1b-M269 was already there, and to date was the most common haplogroup in Yamna that we know of.

You are right that Yamnaya had R1b, but a clade not related to the western R1b, and which as you complain with the Basques, don't show up so much variety.

I'll grant that the word for "sea" might have actually described a smaller body of water, but if you can think of something else one does beyond water-travel when rowing (we still use this word's descendants in English, Frisian, Dutch, etc.) a boat (plowós), share it.

you can row a boat without knowing any sea, ask to the Amazonian tribes.

One wouldn't expect Basques to have high amounts of Yamnaya if their Y-DNA lines are the product of a relatively small group of men from thousands of years ago.

I need a lot of fantasy to believe in it.

No, it's really not. As I've pointed out, it fits rather nicely.

ATP3 (3516–3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.

so
ATP3 = 32%
ATP17 = 11%
other = 0-8%

How could you explain Yamnaya ancestry in Chalcolithic Iberia (just add up the HG ancestry in ATP and you will get it)? that's not a problem for you?

 

[Athiudisc]

I think that if you would wait to see in the steppe a bear or an squirel, or to see how it grows a fir you will expend all your live...

We already covered this. There are bears on the steppe, and regardless, my entire point is that PIE was formed and spread by northerly R1a and southerly R1b, as evidenced by the breadth of vocabulary (along with, obviously, genetic evidence).

Your argument, in contrast, seems to be "there are many red alarms regarding R1b clades being Indo-European despite all the evidence because I don't want to believe it." None of your "red alarms" have actually been "red alarms."

You are right that Yamnaya had R1b, but a clade not related to the western R1b, and which as you complain with the Basques, don't show up so much variety.

How are one's father and brother unrelated? L23 (found in Yamna), Z2103 (found in Yamna) and L51 (western European) all formed within a few centuries of each other. L23 preceded Z2103 and L51. The latter two are the offspring of the former. Brothers of the same father, to oversimplify, or (more realistically) cousins with the same great-grandfather.

How does one even imagine them to be "unrelated?"

You know that all of us R1b-L51 guys from Europe still carry the L23 mutation, right?

you can row a boat without knowing any sea, ask to the Amazonian tribes.

You can, but there's no reason to believe there were magical walls blocking off the Black and Caspian seas. Unless that's part of your theory...?

"The fact that they had boats, rowing, access to seas and a word for bodies of water that was later used for, as an example, the North Sea, is a red alarm because we all know that steppe-bears can't man an oar in the Black Sea because bears can't live on the steppe!"...? :innocent:

I need a lot of fantasy to believe in it.

Certainly no more than's required to ignore everything that doesn't fit in to your theory already.

How could you explain Yamnaya ancestry in Chalcolithic Iberia? that's not a problem for you?

No, eastern ancestry in ATP3 coupled with R1b, contrary to numerous other local remains, is in no way a problem for me, as it's logical given the premise you're arguing against.

 

[berun]

1. Give the bears (wikipedia or travel guides not valid)
2. Give the greatfather's place taking into account that his greatgreatfather was in Italy.
3. What about the seafaring vocabulary then? If possible include sirens.
4. Ok. So Yamnayans in XXXV BC in Iberia. They camped a little afar such year, and that two centuries before they were born.
5. I don't want to believe is not an argument when some months ago i believed as you. Try another.

 

[Athiudisc]

1. Give the bears (wikipedia or travel guides not valid)

You were the first one to use wiki as a source, and now it's invalid because it disagrees with you? Poor form.

2. Give the greatfather's place taking into account that his greatgreatfather was in Italy.

Great-great-great uncle a few hundred times and then some who liked exotic climes and didn't have any children we know about, more like. More time passed between Villabruna and Yamna than between Yamna and us. Further, there's a reason "massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" is a thing and "massive migration from Italy to the steppe and then back is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" isn't.

3. What about the seafaring vocabulary then? If possible include sirens.

Listen, strange women lying in ponds causing shipwrecks is no basis for a system of language dispersal.

More seriously, I cannot even begin to parse what you're about with this one. Sirens?

4. Ok. So Yamnayans in XXXV BC in Iberia. They camped a little afar such year, and that two centuries before they were born.

You'll note I said "eastern." You still haven't even begun to explain how an R1b individual with eastern ancestry somehow proves R1b didn't come from the east.

5. I don't want to believe is not an argument when some months ago i believed as you. Try another.

It's a fine argument, as it seems to be the entirety of your position.

 

[berun]

You were the first one to use wiki as a source, and now it's invalid because it disagrees with you? Poor form.

If you pretend to demonstrate that bears live in steppes yes, if i try to give an example of squirrels in a forest... Wiki is a cookie for that.

Great-great-great uncle a few hundred times and then some who liked exotic climes and didn't have any children we know about, more like. More time passed between Villabruna and Yamna than between Yamna and us.

Villabruna's R1b1a didn't have any children? woo!

Further, there's a reason "massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" is a thing and "massive migration from Italy to the steppe and then back is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" isn't.

that's a call to autorithy, don't call to papa if you can't give answers for 1-4

More seriously, I cannot even begin to parse what you're about with this one. Sirens?

Well, as you know a seafaring IE vocabulary that nobody else knows i was wondering if you also was capable to find out sirens... more seriously, i might have asked for octopusses, tillers or alike.

You still haven't even begun to explain how an R1b individual with eastern ancestry somehow proves R1b didn't come from the east.

I can't deny an Eastern origin, maybe from ancient HG shared DNA with Caucasians or with herder Neolithics not tested (ie no farmers), but by sure I will not be cheated that it was from Yamnayans; you might understand that the issue is about the belief about the mighty Yamnayans, the bunch of herdsmen that changed almost all European Y-DNA.