Quote:
Originally Posted by arvistro
The point is that Croats belong R1a Z280...these are only the initial research...Lusatian Sorbs have R1a M458 type.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by arvistro
The point is that Croats belong R1a Z280...these are only the initial research...Lusatian Sorbs have R1a M458 type.
I think there are a few factors that are potentially at play, but above all, it's important to keep in mind that relative haplogroup percentages do not tend to stay the same over long periods of time, especially when we're talking about an expanding population. I mean, the same argument could be made against the Goths, asking where all the R1b-U106 and I1 went. But either way it's not as strong of an argument as one based on the phylogenetic patterns of the clade in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Not quite, it's backwards--the diversity pattern of I2a-Din looks more like Ukraine>Poland>Balkans, not Poland>Ukraine>Balkans. You might be able to argue for Poland>Ukraine>Poland>Balkans if we include the outlier I2a-"Dinaric cousin" (Wojtowicz) subclade, but that's some thousands of years earlier in the picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
...I'll stop you right there, that's not what he has at all. 2.5k YBP is close to the I2a-Din TMRCA, but the split from I2a-Disles is about 6k YBP, and the split with I2a-Isles is about 11k YBP. The precise locations of these splits are too far in the past to say much about, although the ancient Loschbour and Motala samples may indicate somewhere in Northern Europe. Not that it makes a big difference to this topic's question.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
That's not true. Spain, for example, has single digits of I1 and effectively 0% I2a-Din. Portugal is similar. Where are you finding I2a-Din in Iberia?Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Haplogroup I is ~22k years old. It is much older than anything "Germanic" and spans several European linguistic groups. There are plenty of subclades that aren't Germanic. I2-L38 looks more Celtic to me, for example. I'd place my own subclade (I2c-PF3881) as more Celtic. I2-M26 may be one of the earliest subclades of the Basques, even.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
I'd agree that different I1 subclades could represent different Germanic input, which is why I was arguing that I1-Z63 in particular looks like it could have come largely from the Goths. I'd be interested in a breakdown of which I1 subclades are most common in the Balkans if you know of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
How do you explain same slavic vocabulary in Polish, though we never have learned Old Church Slavonic, and took christianity from Holy Roman Empire instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
First I want to reply to obvious BS stating that "R1a might be Turkmen/Scythian/whatever" and not Slavic, while I2a Din is true proto-Slavic. It is FAR, FAR from thruth.
Since 19th century Russian and Polish historians argue that Scythians were in fact Slavs. German elites back in then tried to prove that Scythians are in fact ancestors of modern day Ossetians and classified Scythian language as "Iranian". First problem with this is that proto-Slavic kurgan culture Scythians were R1a1 people while Ossetians are mainly J2, G, K and R1a1 is practically ABSENT in them. In recent research conducted in 6 Ossetian groups only 1 percent of them were R1a.
How, therefore, is it possible that the Scythian language was classified as Iranian dialect, close to the Ossetian one? What exactly do we know about the language of Scythians? In fact, we know nothing, or very little.
There are no written Scythian texts left. We know nothing about the Scythian grammar. The only source are the inscriptions with toponyms and names, and a few names from Herodot. This is what the so called ‘’linguistic analysis’’ which connected Scythians with Iranians was based upon.
Let’s put the linguistic speculations aside, though. What is truly important is that Iranians and Ossetians are NOT people of light skin complexion. We know from Herodot that Royal Scyths who lived North of the Black Sea were characterized by fair skin complexion. This is confirmed by genetic research of Indo-European tribes , including the Scythians, which invaded Asia.
Quote from one recent genetic study:
"To help unravel some of the early Eurasian steppe migration movements, we determined the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial haplotypes and haplogroups of 26 ancient human specimens from the Krasnoyarsk area dated from between the middle of the second millennium BC. to the fourth century AD. In order to go further in the search of the geographic origin and physical traits of these south Siberian specimens, we also typed phenotype-informative single nucleotide polymorphisms. Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe. Finally, our data indicate that at the Bronze and Iron Age timeframe, south Siberians were blue (or green)-eyed, fair-skinned and light-haired people and that they might have played a role in the early development of the Tarim Basin civilization. To the best of our knowledge, no equivalent molecular analysis has been undertaken so far. "
Migration of people originating from the Slavic kurgan culture, that is light-skinned people carrying the R1a1 gene is considered proven by the modern science. May I add that this particular kind of science is based not upon linguistic speculations but entirely on genetic research, then it cannot be distorted, adjusted or manipulated like the linguistic analysis.
Another quote related to the research on the ancient Scytho-Siberian DNA and skeletons:
"The assignment method was performed from only the allelic frequencies of the seven STR loci considered in the consensus genotype. The probability of observing an individual with the Kizil skeleton STR profile was the highest in the two eastern European populations (Russia and Poland). Indeed, the likelihood that the Kizil skeleton STR profile occurred in these two populations was 10 times higher than in other European populations, 100 times higher than in eastern Asian populations, and about 100,000 times higher than in Indian populations."
This study hence entirely excludes the similarity of Scythians and Asians. At the same time, it points out the similarity of Scythian and Slavic skeletons.
The skull studies prove the same conclusion. Those of modern "Caucasoids" from Eastern Europe cluster very closely with crania from the Karasuk culture. They're also pretty close to all the other purported Indo-Iranians.
As for the R1a1 gene, it is most concentrated among the Slavs- mostly the Poles, the Russians and the Lusatians. All genetic research conducted so far show that Indo-European people migrating into Asia in Bronze and Iron Age, including the Scythians, share R1a1 haplogroup, have fair skin complexion and are genetically closest to the Slavs. Hence, we know that Scythians and other tribes which originated from the kurgan culture did not come from Asia but migrated into Asia. We know that their fatherland was situated North from the Black Sea and was geographically inter-related with the Slavic land. Moreover, the description of the Scythians matches that of the Slavs.
According to the fourth book of Herodot’s Histories, North from the so called Royal Scyths – the principal Scythian tribe- lived the Scythian farmers and Scythian ‘’ploughmen’’. If those two tribes were also considered Scythian, it means that they most likely looked like the Royal Scyths, had similar behavioural patterns to the Royal Scyths and spoke a similar language to that of the Royal Scyths. The only languages that ever existed in this particular geographical area, and exist until this day, are Slavic languages.
The Scythians did not thus speak the Iranian languages. The other way round- the Iranian languages and other languages of central Asia were developed from the Scythian, that is Slavic, languages and hence the linguistic similarities.
May I add that this seems to confirm Indian legends about a noble fair-skinned tribe which migrated into their land in the past. Interestingly, the Indian Brahmini caste- that is the highest one, the caste of rulers and priests, are said to share the R1a1 gene.
Quote from a medical journal:
"Many major rival models of the origin of the Hindu caste system co-exist despite extensive studies, each with associated genetic evidences. One of the major factors that has still kept the origin of the Indian caste system obscure is the unresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associated with a male-mediated major genetic influx from Central Asia or Eurasia, which has contributed to the higher castes in India. Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespread distribution and high frequency across Eurasia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, with scanty reports of its ancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derived lineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying the upper-most caste position and schedule castes/tribals occupying the lower-most positions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binary markers and seven Y-microsatellite markers and compiled an extensive dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) for conclusions. A peculiar observation of the highest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted at its presence as a founder lineage for this caste group. "
Proto-Slavs ARE carriers of R1a1 and are descendants of Scythians, that migrated from Europe to Asia- not the other way around. Unfortunately I could not post sources of those studies because I'm not allowed to post link since I have less than 10 posts but you will find sources fast with Google.
Can you please explain to me how are Goths and R1b-U106 connected? It's maximum concentrations are far from lands Goths inhabited.Quote:
I think there are a few factors that are potentially at play, but above all, it's important to keep in mind that relative haplogroup percentages do not tend to stay the same over long periods of time, especially when we're talking about an expanding population. I mean, the same argument could be made against the Goths, asking where all the R1b-U106 and I1 went. But either way it's not as strong of an argument as one based on the phylogenetic patterns of the clade in question.
I wasn't talking about diversity pattern, what I meant was concentration. You can perfectly see how concentration steadily increases when we follow their migrations from oldest to most recent homeland, and it is pretty logical IMO.Quote:
Not quite, it's backwards--the diversity pattern of I2a-Din looks more like Ukraine>Poland>Balkans, not Poland>Ukraine>Balkans. You might be able to argue for Poland>Ukraine>Poland>Balkans if we include the outlier I2a-"Dinaric cousin" (Wojtowicz) subclade, but that's some thousands of years earlier in the picture.
Now diversity pattern is a little tricky, AFAIK ancestors of many people who today live in southern Poland actually lived in western Ukraine in some point of time.
First division of Dinaric was by STR448=20 (North) and STR448=19 (South) by Nordtvedt. Afterwards new SNP's CTS34002, CTS10936, CTS11768 were found that clearly separate Disles from Dinaric, and after that comes Polish "Dinaric cousin", but since it is negative on two SNP's (CTS5966 and CTS10228) while Din is positive, and also on STR565=11 while other Dinaric have STR565=9, it is obvious that Dinaric cousin is separated from Dinaric by few thousand years and therefore he's not relevant to our discussion.
Only a few months ago SNP S12750 was found and it was positive on all of Dinaric South, and also in most of North while smaller part of North had it negative, which confirms thesis that South is just a younger branch of North and that both came relatively recently from north.
As I already said diversity part is messy. So if we have in mind that many of southern Poland residents came from Ukraine it is safe to assume that DS and DN actually were not geographically separated so much, and also in ex-Yugoslavia we can find both DN and DS although DS has prevalence.
BTW many Montenegrins have STR448=18 so I wonder if it could mean new branch of DS.
But if we follow concentration pattern and also have in mind regional distribution of I2a Din and R1a in Yugoslavia we will see that it corresponds very well to Gothic migrations.
Yeah, my mistake. But again it is not really relevant to our discussion. What I wanted to point out is that I2a Din TMRCA lived in Gothic homeland 2500 years ago...Quote:
...I'll stop you right there, that's not what he has at all. 2.5k YBP is close to the I2a-Din TMRCA, but the split from I2a-Disles is about 6k YBP, and the split with I2a-Isles is about 11k YBP. The precise locations of these splits are too far in the past to say much about, although the ancient Loschbour and Motala samples may indicate somewhere in Northern Europe. Not that it makes a big difference to this topic's question.
I must have mixed I2a Din with general I2a (which is Basque I think). But then again I1 has like 1 percent in whole Spain and it is actually more common on south then on north where Visigoth core was, actually it is practically absent. I2a Din may be absent but there are some individuals from New Mexico of Spanish ancestry with I2a Din, what is also interesting is that all of them are North and none South.Quote:
That's not true. Spain, for example, has single digits of I1 and effectively 0% I2a-Din. Portugal is similar. Where are you finding I2a-Din in Iberia?
Well yes, but I didn't say it was Germanic in time of its formation, I actually meant it is Germanic now and many close clades to I2a Din are Germanic now. And BTW Celtic (especially if it stand for Celts BC) is more cultural than ethnic mark.Quote:
Haplogroup I is ~22k years old. It is much older than anything "Germanic" and spans several European linguistic groups. There are plenty of subclades that aren't Germanic. I2-L38 looks more Celtic to me, for example. I'd place my own subclade (I2c-PF3881) as more Celtic. I2-M26 may be one of the earliest subclades of the Basques, even.
I took this data from Serb DNA project (which includes results from whole Yugoslavia): I1 p109 STR481=0: 17 surnames, I1 Z58: 4 surnames, I1 Z63: 9 surnames (8 of them from single Macura clan).Quote:
I'd agree that different I1 subclades could represent different Germanic input, which is why I was arguing that I1-Z63 in particular looks like it could have come largely from the Goths. I'd be interested in a breakdown of which I1 subclades are most common in the Balkans if you know of one.
Now, it doesn't make sense that descendants of Robert Guiscard's Normans (I1 P109 STR481=0, seafarers and warriors that came in boats) are more numerous than descendants of what you think of as Goths (I1 Z63, very large people that inhabited west Balkan for at least 200 years), does it? And keep in mind that all except one of I1 Z63 found are from one single clan.
Well of course most of our vocabulary is same because we speak Slavic, but most of words of Gothic origin here are not common in other Slavic lands, and if they are, it is most likely that they have another word for it while we only have one. Someone above also mentioned that about 1000 words of Gothic origin are present in Chakavian dialect, which was nowhere as much influenced by language standardization because it is not official and therefore it is only spoken among locals.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBrok
Well, every modern Germanic population has large amounts of R1b-U106, I1, and R1a, although the relative percentages vary. East Germanic peoples may have had lower percentages of R1b-U106, sure. I think I've even argued before that they likely had lower R1b-U106 than other Germanic peoples. But I don't see a reason to believe that they had none.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
I don't think that an argument from concentration means much, though. If a population keeps splitting, migrating, and expanding, then (at least if we're talking pre-modern population movement) the general pattern is for places closest to the points of origin to have the highest diversity of lineages. Concentrations, meanwhile, can fluctuate independently in every location.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Good summary of what we know of the diversity, by the way, not much else to address there.
2500 YBP is close to the I2a-Din TMRCA, so I suppose in that case we're looking for the place where the I2a-Din TMRCA most likely lived. Last I checked (admittedly I haven't been keeping up with developments the past year or so, so correct me if I'm wrong), the highest diversity was around Ukraine and Romania. Poland is a hot spot for I2a-Din-S diversity in particular, but that's younger than 2500 years ago, and raises the question of what population would be transmitting lineages from the direction of Ukraine to Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Do Disles and Isles look Germanic to you? I see evidence of some possible Celtic/Germanic split within Isles, but Disles looks pretty Celtic. It's tough to say with continental samples so sparse, of course. Anyway, the split between I2a-Din and Disles is older than most estimates I've seen for the Germanic ethnogenesis by quite a bit, so it doesn't inform us much here either way. It could be that each branch is simply derived from an ancient northern European population, some of which would later contribute to Germanic peoples, but also some to northern Celtic peoples in the west, some to Slavic peoples in the east, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
I would call it an ethno-linguistic group, like Germanic and Slavic. If you mean that Celtic peoples were more genetically diverse than Germanic and (proto?-)Slavic peoples in the late BC period, I would agree. I'm just saying that some subclades look like they fall into the big Celtic bucket more than into the Germanic bucket.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
If your numbers are accurate, then it's certainly remarkable that there seems to be a large founder effect from a possibly Norman source. I1-Z63 is still a good place to look for Gothic contribution, although I'm not saying that we will get an accurate measure by looking at just the I1-Z63 percentage. In fact, it may be difficult to get an accurate measure from modern Y-DNA at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Still, I'm not satisfied with this sample. I'd like to look at the I1 Project, but it's currently giving me errors, so maybe later.
I think concentrations are more important than you think, and concentrations can not fluctuate independently on every location. Why? Because it is not the way Germanic peoples migrated. Germanic tribes migrated en-masse, taking all of tribe members with them, so what we got after they left were only small leftovers. "Expanding" was certainly not what they did. On other hand Slavic tribes did that, they migrated by conquering piece by piece of new lands, while they never abandoned their old homeland. Not until the 6/7th century did they start with massive migrations too. I believe we were taught that in elementary school as main difference between their migrations.Quote:
I don't think that an argument from concentration means much, though. If a population keeps splitting, migrating, and expanding, then (at least if we're talking pre-modern population movement) the general pattern is for places closest to the points of origin to have the highest diversity of lineages. Concentrations, meanwhile, can fluctuate independently in every location.
Good summary of what we know of the diversity, by the way, not much else to address there.
So if we fit that in our story, it means that main mass of Gothic tribes left Poland so the leftovers were assimilated by next people that came there. Similar thing happened to Ukraine sea coast, BUT part was enslaved by Huns so they did not migrate with rest.
It seems pretty logical to me, but I could be wrong.
IIRC it was Nordtvedt himself who located I2a Din TMRCA in middle course of Vistula (which corresponds to Gothic homeland). BTW as I said majority of people living today in parts of southern Poland can have their origins in western Ukraine so that may answer your question?Quote:
2500 YBP is close to the I2a-Din TMRCA, so I suppose in that case we're looking for the place where the I2a-Din TMRCA most likely lived. Last I checked (admittedly I haven't been keeping up with developments the past year or so, so correct me if I'm wrong), the highest diversity was around Ukraine and Romania. Poland is a hot spot for I2a-Din-S diversity in particular, but that's younger than 2500 years ago, and raises the question of what population would be transmitting lineages from the direction of Ukraine to Poland.
Hmm well I don't have permission to post links so I will give you directions. Google "srpski dnk projekat" and click on first result, then click on tab "СВИ ДНК РЕЗУЛТАТИ ПО ПРЕЗИМЕНИМА" and you will see table with haplogroups by surnames. Notice that there are 14 I1 results that do not have specific subgroup.Quote:
If your numbers are accurate, then it's certainly remarkable that there seems to be a large founder effect from a possibly Norman source. I1-Z63 is still a good place to look for Gothic contribution, although I'm not saying that we will get an accurate measure by looking at just the I1-Z63 percentage. In fact, it may be difficult to get an accurate measure from modern Y-DNA at all.
Still, I'm not satisfied with this sample. I'd like to look at the I1 Project, but it's currently giving me errors, so maybe later.
I think Norman input under any circumstances can never be as large as Gothic one.
In favor of the Goths we have evidence of 4000 years of continuity of I2a1 in Northern Europe, from Loschbour in 6000 B.C. to Ajvide 58 in 2000 B.C., we have an archeological record of depopulation of Scandinavia in the age of Germanic migrations and a modern distribution that matches the written history of where those people settled.
I don't see the connection. The populations that Goths contributed to did not remain Gothic, so of course they fluctuated afterward, and they would have even if they had, since how the population fluctuates internally doesn't depend on how they got there. Anyway, even if we accept the idea that all Goths left their homeland and left no remnants, I would still expect to see remnant neighboring tribes with similar genetics. Groups like the Anglo-Saxons, Suebi, etc. left behind plenty of peoples of related (and even their own) tribes with practically indistinguishable genetics, and we get nice comparisons between modern populations near their origins and at their destinations. Are the Goths supposed to be different?Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Thanks, I've seen Poreklo's DNA Project before, they're very good. Their results have informed a couple of my additions to my "Searching for famous I2 carriers" thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Still waiting on FTDNA to start working again to get additional data, though.
Couple problems with that. We don't have any Anglo Saxon Y DNA or Suebi DNA at all so your point is just an assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
I think it's a reasonable assumption based on diversity patterns of Germanic-looking subclades like I1-Z58 and R1b-U106. You think it's a problematic assumption that Anglo-Saxons and Suebi carried those?Quote:
Originally Posted by motzart
There is no historical proof for Goths assimilating other peoples. Goths left remnants of course, but not very large (in Poland). And we still don't know how much connection do eastern Germanic peoples of Goths and Vandals have with other Germanic peoples.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
But let's ask counter-question: if I2a Din was brought by Slavs, then why don't Slavs that are today in Poland have similar genetics to southern ones? I need some evidence that I2a was brought by Slavs.
Well, (Southern) Poland is a hotspot for I2a-Din-S diversity. I don't think we expect the Poles and the Slavs in the Balkans to look very similar in terms of haplogroup subclade percentage, though, even if I2a-Din was largely transmitted to the Balkans via Poland. Too many effects from substrata, superstrata, population fluctuation over time, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
I expect Poles and Balkan Slavs to have same percentage of haplogroups, because that is where Balkan Slavs came from, according to current official version of history. I don't think concentration of R1a can shrink from 56 percent in Poles (where Croatian homeland was), to under 15 percent in Dalmatian Croats, and in same way I don't think anything could explain how can Sorbs have 65 percent of R1a while Montenegrins (who, according to history, came from western Poland/eastern Germany) have like 8 percent of it. Again, I ask you, if Slavs brought I2a Din indeed, then how can modern concentration of haplogroups in Balkans differ so much from original Slavic homeland?Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkey
On the other hand, (southern) Poland has highest diversity of I2a-Din, and that is where Goths lived before they migrated to south and Slavs moved in. IMO both diversity and concentration patterns of I2a-Din represent migrations of Goths very good.
I2a in balkans is an assumption of modern slavs that the marker is slavic. Because the cimmerians who came from southern Ukraine to the balkans in 700 BC ( 1400 years before the slavs ) carried this marker. The slavs ASSUME that cimmerians are slavs and continually make a claim to absorb indigenous tribes from various areasQuote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
"I need some evidence that I2a was brought by Slavs."
There is absolutely no evidece for that.
Paleolithic continuity theory is outdated, so only two possible carriers that could have brought it in such a large number were Goths and Slavs. I assume it is much more probable that Goths brought I2a Din rather than Slavs.Quote:
Originally Posted by gyms
Yes, they assume it is Slavic only because Yugoslavians are linguistically Slavic today. I am not familiar with fact that Cimmerians brought I2a Din with them, and their arrival on Balkans is probably too old for arrival of I2a Din. Current spread of I2a Din is result of sudden expansion from Poland that happened around 2000 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sile
They didn't need to come in numbers. The expansion could have happened when they have gotten to Balkans 1,500 years ago. Balkans were depopulated at this time and it would help expansion of population of newcomers.Quote:
Originally Posted by clintCG
Well I need more evidence to even consider Cimmerians as carriers of I2a Din...
IIRC Ken Nordtvedt and Vadim Verenich estimate the age of formation of I2a1b1 as 2800 years ago and its TMRCA as 2500 years ago. Place of formation was Eastern or East-Central Europe according to them. This young age combined with its presence among Slavic (especially East Slavic and South Slavic) populations and its lack of presence among Baltic populations, suggests that this mutation originally formed in one of members of the Proto-Slavic community around year 800 BCE. The time when the Balto-Slavic community split (an event illustrated by the graph below), forming Proto-Slavs and the other two groups (Proto East Balts and Proto West Balts - according to Kromer's 2003 theory) has been variously estimated at between 1500 BCE and 500 BCE, but most authors place it between 1400 and 1200 BCE:
Atkinson - 1400 BCE
Novotná & Blažek - 1400–1340 BCE
Sergei Starostin - 1210 BCE
Chang et. al. - 600 BCE
http://s21.postimg.org/r6k2ijrjr/Modele.png
If this mutation is younger than the split of the Balto-Slavic community, then this fact nicely explains why I2a1b1 is present among Slavs but not among Balts. Had this lineage been present among Balto-Slavs before they split some 3400 - 3200 years ago, it should be present among both Balts and Slavs today (unless it was so small in numbers that - just by chance - only Slavs inherited it, and not Balts).
Now when it comes to R1a:
This claim is completely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by hrvat22
Data from Underhill 2014 shows that Croats have the highest proportion of M458 in entire R1a among South Slavs (read below).
Among Slavic and Baltic populations, when it comes to people with haplogroup R1a, two major clades dominate - Z280 and M458.
The age of these two clades is:
http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/
Z280:
Time when mutation emerged (in one male) - ca. 5000 years ago (95% probability that in period 5600 - 4400 y.a.).
Time of the most recent common ancestor - ca. 4800 years ago (95% probability that in period 5400 - 4200 y.a.).
M458:
Time when mutation emerged (in one male) - ca. 5000 lat temu (95% probability that in period 5600 - 4400 y.a.).
Time of the most recent common ancestor - ok. 4500 lat temu (95% probability that in period 5400 - 4200 y.a.).
=================================================
Distribution of percentage shares of these clades within all of R1a forms an interesting continuum (but also a clinal distribution in some areas).
If individuals with R1a haplogroup in each population = 100%, then respective shares of Z280 and M458 within that R1a are:
Population (R1a Z280 / R1a M458 / other clades of R1a) - according to Underhill 2014 (+ Ukrainians from Lviv & Lithuanians from another - Russian - source, as well as alternative data for Russians, Poles and Belarusians from the same Russian source):
WeS = Western Slavs
SoS = Southern Slavs
EaS = Eastern Slavs
Balt = Balts
[WeS] Czechs-----------------------------(20,2 / 79,8 / 0,0)
[WeS] Czechs Utah------------------------(19,9 / 70,0 / 10,1)
[SoS] Croatia interior-----------------------(32,0 / 68,0 / 0,0)
[WeS] Poland------------------------------(42,0 / 58,0 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Cherkassy-----------------(46,9 / 53,1 / 0,0)
[WeS] Poland (another source)--------------(51,7 / 48,3 / 0,0)
[WeS] Slovakia-----------------------------(52,1 / 46,2 / 1,7)
[WeS] Poles Wroclaw-----------------------(56,8 / 43,2 / 0,0)
[SoS] Bulgaria------------------------------(51,2 / 42,0 / 6,8)
[EaS] Ukrainians Lviv------------------------(58,2 / 41,8 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Ivano-Frankivsk-------------(60,0 / 40,0 / 0,0)
[EaS] Belarusians Brest----------------------(61,4 / 38,6 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians Kostroma--------------------(62,6 / 37,4 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Donetsk--------------------(67,4 / 30,4 / 2,2)
[EaS] Belarusians (another source)-----------(69,7 / 30,3 / 0,0)
[SoS] Macedonians--------------------------(72,7 / 27,3 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians Pskov------------------------(72,6 / 25,8 / 1,6)
[EaS] Russians Oryol-------------------------(76,4 / 23,6 / 0,0)
[SoS] Serbia---------------------------------(64,9 / 23,2 / 11,9)
[EaS] Belarusians (Underhill)------------------(76,8 / 23,2 / 0,0)
[SoS] Bosnia--------------------------------(80,2 / 19,8 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians (another source)--------------(80,8 / 19,2 / 0,0)
[EaS] Russians Belgorod----------------------(81,2 / 18,8 / 0,0)
[Balt] Lithuanians----------------------------(81,8 / 18,2 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Khmilnyk---------------------(84,3 / 15,7 / 0,0)
[EaS] Ukrainians Akkerman--------------------(88,4 / 11,6 / 0,0)
[SoS] Slovenia-------------------------------(83,9 / 10,7 / 5,4)
[SoS] Herzegovina----------------------------(93,8 / 6,2 / 0,0)
Chart:
http://s17.postimg.org/8i4qm1een/R1a_chart.png
And graph:
http://s29.postimg.org/n8pi0uko7/Graph_Clades.png
http://s29.postimg.org/n8pi0uko7/Graph_Clades.png
=======================================
And here a map showing the percentage share of M458 among total R1a (based on data from Underhill, data from the other source not included):
Boundaries of frequency areas are approximate / conventional (since Underhill collected samples mostly from specific cities or groups of locations):
http://s2.postimg.org/y56xlyfex/M458.png
Interestingly, Baltic clades N-L550 and N-L1025 have similar ages and TMRCAs as I2a1b1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomenable
N1c1a1a1a (L550): found throughout the Baltic and North Slavic countries
N1c1a1a1a1 (L1025): found especially in Balto-Slavic countries, with a peak in Lithuania and Latvia
N-L550 formed 3300 ybp, TMRCA 2700 ybp
N-L1025 formed 2700 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp
Now compare this to I2a1b1 which (according to Nordtvedt & Verenich) formed 2800 ybp, TMRCA 2500 ybp.
Data on distribution of N1c1a (old name N3) and R1a in Lithuania - from Kasperaviciute 2004:
http://genofond.invint.net/genofond....df?file_id=966
http://images70.fotosik.pl/664/fed9ba0fa382d46b.jpg
Map (southern region marked as SA - inhabited largely by ethnic Poles - has 61,8% R1a and only 29,4% N3):
http://images70.fotosik.pl/664/e51a41f174799001.jpg
As for I2a1b frequencies:
Croats - 37,8%
Ukrainians from Lviv - 22,1%
Belarusians - 17,9%
Russians - 11,7%
Poles - 6,4% (according to some other studies more)
Lithuania - 3,5%
They previously located I1 TMRCA in Scandinavia and R1b TMRCA in Spain - both of which turned out to be wrong.Quote:
IIRC it was Nordtvedt himself who located I2a Din TMRCA in middle course of Vistula
So such assumptions are not reliable. What you really need are ancient DNA samples.
The following info was announced around April 2014:
"This year [2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."
So we must wait until 2019.
This still doesn't explain it and perfectly supports my theory. Why is there so much difference between Hezegovina and Slavonia Croats? Don't they all descend from same Slavs? Why do then Slavonians have over 50 percent of R1a and Herzegovinians and Montenegrins have only about 6 percent of R1a?
It is because Slavs settled in northern Yugoslavia, in lands suitable for farming (R1a carriers), and Goths (I2a1b) settled in Dinaric Alps. If they were all Slavic as modern history claims they would all have same amount of HG's. It is just like our medieval history sources tell us...
Reason why there is some I2a1b in Ukraine is because it comes from Gothic leftovers. As we know from history bigger part of Goths migrated over Danube to Balkans while smaller part was subdued by Huns and remained on Black Sea coast. Even Gothic dialect was spoken in Crimea until 19th century.
Assumption that it is Slavic comes from the fact that today carriers of I2a1b are linguistically Slavic, which they were not in the past.
Also 3-4 thousand years of I2a1 continuity in Neolithic hunter-gatherer Scandinavians support my theory (from Motala to Ajvide), as well as evidence for depopulation at that time.
It is clear that I2a1 got to Poland from Scandinavia, not from eastern Europe, and I2a1b in Poland existed long before any Slavic or proto-Slavic tribe entered it.
BTW no chance there is so much R1a even in northern Croatia as you listed it on map.
In the past the extent of South Slavic languages was larger than it is today.Quote:
Assumption that it is Slavic comes from the fact that today carriers of I2a1b are linguistically Slavic, which they were not in the past.
On the other hand, the extend of East Slavic languages was smaller in the past than today.
Map: Territories inhabited by Slavic peoples in the mid-9th century (around year 850 AD):
(thick black lines) ludność słowiańska w zdecydowanej przewadze ======== Slavic population constitutes vast majority
(thin black lines) ludność słowiańska w rozproszeniu ================== dispersed settlement of Slavic population
(small red circles) ludność słowiańska poza głównym terytorium osiedlenia == Slavic people outside of main settlement area
http://s16.postimg.org/a1qohl76d/Slavic_world_850.png
Boundaries of ethnic Slavic territories in year 850 AD underlined:
http://s8.postimg.org/shpocs2jp/Slavdom_Poland.png
Map posted above is originally from:
"Słowianie, ich wędrówki, siedziby i otoczenie etniczne we wczesnośredniowiecznej Europie"
("Slavs, their migrations, homelands and ethnic environment in Early Medieval Europe")
by Adam Sengebusch
And another similar map (also for year ca. 850 AD - as you can see it shows a bit larger extent of East Slavic territory):
http://hetman3333.blox.pl/resource/mapa_slowianie.JPG
You did not understand what the map says, apparently. Take a look at the chart I posted above.Quote:
BTW no chance there is so much R1a even in northern Croatia as you listed it on map.