What is the Origin and History of I1 M253

I call it my "Island Hide-Out Theory". (Developed it by looking at the Hunnic Invasions and also the Mongols... with the idea that history doesn't repeat itself exactly, but it does seem to come in waves.)
 
Stop the presses. While reviewing the genesis of this hideout theory... I realize I owe a huge thanks to Kamani. I got so wrapped up strengthening /building/shaping this concept that I forgot the main idea is Kamani's. Actually he was the first to link terrain and military dominance to haplogroup success. My apologies Kamani.
 
I've postulated M170's distribution is related to the R clades sweeping in from the East with a couple of huge advantages

I agree with your two major points: 1) I-M170 was amalgamated with at least 1 major R clade, probably a R1b (S21 I would guess)...and 2) that it spread from the East (Balkans and SW Black Sea)
Here's my wag on I-M170's distribution in Europe... (a little long, I apologize in advance)
1. Native distribution in Balkans and Southwestern rim of Black Sea. In the Balkans it fermented into the Starcevo and later Vinca culture where it may have represented a sizable portion of the population. Due to its areal contact in the Black Sea, both cultures, generally viewed as non-IE, still are sometimes difficult to identify taxonomically.
2. Possible initial gene-flow into Central Europe with Linear Beaker and later Funnel Beaker Cultures Although both are considered non-Indo-European, its been suggested both cultures saw a slow creep of Western Black Sea cultural influences.
3. Major expansion out of the Balkans during the Urnfield expansion. The Urnfielders, in my view, brought new technology, Balkan metallurgy and religion into Central Europe. I think a new Balkan warrior caste composed of (R1b-S261*, I1*, I2*, ?) imposed itself culturally or militarily on the Unetice people (P-312 and R1a) in what was anciently the Beaker/Corded zone contact area. This is where I think the bulk of M170 now present in Europe got its beginning. The nucleus of Urnfield collapsed with the 're-awakening' of Western (proto-Celt) people. One remnant of Urnfield being Jastorf, which was the cultural thread of early pre-proto-Germanics in the North (IMO) and who heavily influenced an already Urnfieldized Nordic Bronze age culture.
Heavy representation of Haplogroup I in Scandinavia due exclusively to low population density.
4. I1* ad I2* clades spill into every crevice of Europe with the Germanic migrations leaving a puzzling picture due to founder effect.
Whatever the age of M-170, if it amalgamated into a culture with a clade of R1b, it would naturally appear more diverse solely due to the fact that it was probably native in the area of amalgamation, ie. the SW Black Sea or Balkans, whereas the R1b clade in the mixture was a migrant. If there was in fact a major expansion out of the Balkans or South Eastern Europe, what you will see is a caste of very young R1b moving into Europe with very little diversity and apparent age, AND a great many clades of I* with unlimited diversity.
As tribal migrations of North Sea peoples carpet bomb Europe in later years, founder events put clades of I* in different places like England, Sardinia, Spain, Northern France, etc... you get a very bizarre picture of very low diversity of isolated clades in localized areas.
 
1. Native distribution in Balkans and Southwestern rim of Black Sea. In the Balkans it fermented into the Starcevo and later Vinca culture where it may have represented a sizable portion of the population. Due to its areal contact in the Black Sea, both cultures, generally viewed as non-IE, still are sometimes difficult to identify taxonomically.

Then why haven't we seen high diversity or outlier I1 in the Vinča culture region? Undersampling? I would guess a Neolithic culture like Vinča to have expanded majority lineages within its region, which would probably make I1 a clearer part of the regional Neolithic package of haplogroups, as well as older than it appears now. I will personally be very surprised if you're right about this.

2. Possible initial gene-flow into Central Europe with Linear Beaker and later Funnel Beaker Cultures Although both are considered non-Indo-European, its been suggested both cultures saw a slow creep of Western Black Sea cultural influences.

It's interesting, though, that LBK has not shown I1 in its ancient samples. To me, that, along with the phylogeny, indicates that the principal spread of I1 postdates LBK. Perhaps it was a minority haplogroup within LBK, maybe at the northern periphery of that culture? (Highly speculative of course.)

3. Major expansion out of the Balkans during the Urnfield expansion. The Urnfielders, in my view, brought new technology, Balkan metallurgy and religion into Central Europe. I think a new Balkan warrior caste composed of (R1b-S261*, I1*, I2*, ?) imposed itself culturally or militarily on the Unetice people (P-312 and R1a) in what was anciently the Beaker/Corded zone contact area. This is where I think the bulk of M170 now present in Europe got its beginning. The nucleus of Urnfield collapsed with the 're-awakening' of Western (proto-Celt) people. One remnant of Urnfield being Jastorf, which was the cultural thread of early pre-proto-Germanics in the North (IMO) and who heavily influenced an already Urnfieldized Nordic Bronze age culture.

But Urnfield ancient samples haven't shown I1 either. I'm not sure I understand what pattern you're seeing to suggest that the I1 likely in Jatorf to have been from the same component that introduced Urnfield to the North, as opposed to its more northerly influences (NBA, Lusatian, or the native-turned-Urnfield "North Urnfield" group).

Heavy representation of Haplogroup I in Scandinavia due exclusively to low population density.

This I agree with, except to note that geographic proximity helped.

I1* ad I2* clades spill into every crevice of Europe with the Germanic migrations leaving a puzzling picture due to founder effect.
Whatever the age of M-170, if it amalgamated into a culture with a clade of R1b, it would naturally appear more diverse solely due to the fact that it was probably native in the area of amalgamation, ie. the SW Black Sea or Balkans, whereas the R1b clade in the mixture was a migrant. If there was in fact a major expansion out of the Balkans or South Eastern Europe, what you will see is a caste of very young R1b moving into Europe with very little diversity and apparent age, AND a great many clades of I* with unlimited diversity.
As tribal migrations of North Sea peoples carpet bomb Europe in later years, founder events put clades of I* in different places like England, Sardinia, Spain, Northern France, etc... you get a very bizarre picture of very low diversity of isolated clades in localized areas.

Agreed that the picture is complicated, but I would only associate a few of these complications with the Germanic expansions--specifically I1 and most I2-M223 subclades. The thing is, few other I subclades fit this pattern or the Balkans expansion pattern, and indeed, ancient minority and outlier subclades prefer to cluster in Western and Central Europe in a way that we wouldn't expect if the Balkans played a major role in its Neolithic distribution. Take I2-M26 in particular. It has no apparent connection to the Balkans and yet it has one of the most easily identifiably Neolithic spreads, backed up by both its molecular diversity and ancient DNA. Rather, it seems to have spread from the West. In fact, I have much more difficulty finding any Haplogroup I subclades that seem to share an early spread into Europe with early proto-R1b-L11 than I do those that don't. Even the I2 common in the Balkans (I2a-Din) doesn't seem to have spread from there. So my thought is that R1b passed through the Balkans long after Haplogroup I did, and that the Halpogroup I expansions that connected with R1b expansions happened after R1b had already drifted into the local Haplogroup I-carrying areas.
 
If it's indeed true that I1's "youthful" status accounts for the percentages that we now see in Northern Europe (and I must here that I'm not yet set on I1's age), wouldn't it then follow that I1 is a hyper-successful branch? If this group was able to achieve fairly high percentages/populations for such a young clade... I'm thinking it stands to reason I1 will be increasing it's collective numbers rapidly in the future. Certainly I1 has benefited from European success in settling the New World (not to mention I1 repeated intrusions into Great Britain). Pyromatic, what age do you assign to I1 specifically if I may ask? I think it would be helpful to attach age estimates-- I have it between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. I do like your coalescence calculation idea... but I1 subclade movements are illustrated clearly with the recent FTDNA maps. Would it be possible for someone to link these FTDNA maps to this thread by the way?


It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.
 
It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.

You know that almost all of Scandinavia did not begin to farm till the bronze and iron age so that definitely does not explain around 40% I1 in areas of Scandinavia that were not farming in the Neolithic age. You should look at this websites I1 page even they disagree and say in Scandnavia it came with maybe the earliest human settlement, plus it did even originate in Scandinavia it originated in continental Europe probably central probably in the Palaeolithic age. I am kind of sick about arguing the obvious. There is no way I1 spread in Scandinavia during the Neolithic, copper, or bronze age it probably came before N1c1c and with the first human settlement in Scandinavia. That does not mean that it originated in Scandinavia is definitely originated in continental Europe probably central. Just wait till we have the ancient DNA and new info comes in.
 
You know that almost all of Scandinavia did not begin to farm till the bronze and iron age so that definitely does not explain around 40% I1 in areas of Scandinavia that were not farming in the Neolithic age. You should look at this websites I1 page even they disagree and say in Scandnavia it came with maybe the earliest human settlement, plus it did even originate in Scandinavia it originated in continental Europe probably central probably in the Palaeolithic age. I am kind of sick about arguing the obvious. There is no way I1 spread in Scandinavia during the Neolithic, copper, or bronze age it probably came before N1c1c and with the first human settlement in Scandinavia. That does not mean that it originated in Scandinavia is definitely originated in continental Europe probably central. Just wait till we have the ancient DNA and new info comes in.
I actually agree with your entire statement F.H. I1 probably split off from M170 SOMEWHERE on the continent, but didn't fully thrive until the throngs of R1b began to spread out through Northern Europe/Scandinavia and the gap in technology was equalized (either through warfare capture or more likely trade) I do think the main clan of I1 used Aland and the islands off of Turku in Finland to hide-out during the initial R1b sweeps. To me that is the only thing that would explain the current maps. P.S. Sparkey what do you think of the whole "Island Hideout" theory?
 
...once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era. When you say age, do you mean time of divergence from I or TMRCA of all I1-bearing men today? Those are two very different numbers.
Both estimates would be appreciated. I agree that the balance between R1b lines and I1 clades seems to be fixed over their current regions, but I think both groups did carve big chunks out of each other's respective numbers in the past. The first arrivals of R1b probably decimated I1 members, but the much later Anglo-Saxon, Viking, and even Norman invasions cost the various R1b lines a heavy toll. I don't see these ratios changing relative to each other, but both R1b and I1 will certainly lose out to the huge urban influx we now see in England, Germany, Sweden, etc. European pie charts will have to make room for the various clades of J2, E, A, the H's and R1's from India... really the whole alphabet.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree with your entire statement F.H. I1 probably split off from M170 SOMEWHERE on the continent, but didn't fully thrive until the throngs of R1b began to spread out through Northern Europe/Scandinavia and the gap in technology was equalized (either through warfare capture or more likely trade) I do think the main clan of I1 used Aland and the islands off of Turku in Finland to hide-out during the initial R1b sweeps. To me that is the only thing that would explain the current maps. P.S. Sparkey what do you think of the whole "Island Hideout" theory?
I strongly dis agree with the idea that I1 did not become popular in Scandinavia till Germanic R1b S21(I guess other R1b too) invasion starting just 3,500ybp. Maciamo on the I1 page already made the point how 80% of Finnish I1 is under specifc Finnish I1a2 L22 subclades. While Scandinavian I1 subclades are found in the same areas as R1b and I2a2 P214 on the west coast which is all from Swedish inter marriage,. But the Finnish I1a2 L22 subclades do not come from the bronze age and Maciamo said Mesloithic age 6,000-7,000ybp I would say just whenever the first hu8mans made it to Finland. So 80% of Finnish I1 is under their own I1a2 L22 subclades and 5% under Scandinavian L22 subclades I guess then 15% of 28% of their y DNA is under other I1a Df29 subclades most typical for continental Europe. All I know is that the majority of I1 in Sweden and Norway is under I1a2 L22 once I heard I think 58%. So that would leave about 42% of 30-37% of their y DNA to non L22 I1 subclades. I guarantee it has similar distribution to R1a Z284 or to R1b S21, I2a2 P214, and red hair. R1a Z283 would have come to Sweden and Norway through central Europe about 4,500-5,000ybp which was apart of proto Balto Slavic speaking Corded ware culture. R1b S21, I2a2 P214, and red hair(or just over 1%) all came to Sweden and Norway with proto Germanic languages at the earliest 3,500-4,000ybp through central Europe. Or other contact people in Norway and Sweden have had with central Europeans throughout history could effect how much non I1a2 L22 I1 they have. But since Finland has had such little contact with central Europe it makes sense why Norway and Sweden would have more non L22 I1.
 
In fact, I have much more difficulty finding any Haplogroup I subclades that seem to share an early spread into Europe with early proto-R1b-L11 than I do those that don't. Even the I2 common in the Balkans (I2a-Din) doesn't seem to have spread from there. So my thought is that R1b passed through the Balkans long after Haplogroup I did, and that the Halpogroup I expansions that connected with R1b expansions happened after R1b had already drifted into the local Haplogroup I-carrying areas.
Let me suggest that R1b-M269 entered Europe from multiple locations and times, so any correlation between I-M170 would probably be with clades of R-U106/S21 and it may not be a clean correlation given the sparse settlements of the North Sea and Scandinavia.
I 'would not' expect to see any correlation at the level of R-L21.
Even though its very likely M170 was seeping into Europe as a minority haplotype with LBK or FBK, I would guess that the majority of LBK and FBK paternal lines in Western Europe were culled starting in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age.
I find the Urnfield an interesting topic for "I" followers in that it begins in what could only be SE Europe and ends with Jastorf, among others. Of course the majority of the human population in the Urnfield horizon were descended from Tumulus people, but there seems to be an introduction of a new social order and cultural traits associated with the SE.
Emphasis on a type of cremation burial, axes, so forth. The evidence of "hill forts" I think is indicitive of an embattled social caste or at least the presence of a non-native aristocracy.
If in fact Urnfield involved a warrior caste of SE Indo-Europeans, there would certainly be an amalgam of men that had high diversity of Haplotype I and probably low diversity of R1b. So it would seem at least a substantial amount of I's distribution in Europe could be attributed to Urnfield and its high frequency and variability in the North is deceptive because of density and from where it spread.
The Urnfield began its expansion around the time of the Brnoze Age collapse, which was especially violent in the Aegean and Balkans. Increasing violence of Scythians pushed Cimmerians, Thracians and Phrygians from their native abodes into places like the Balkans which may have either pushed Balkan refugees into Europe or maybe the entire episode turned into one big land grab with every nation for himself, Balkanites included.

It's in this environment that appears to be the ideal primordial ooze that a language like pre-proto-Germanic to have evolved.
Perhaps the so-called "Thraco-Cimmerian Hypothesis" could be better explained by a maintenance of Cultural contact with the Balkans during the Urnfield phase ultimately ending with the Hallstat phase.

Looking at maps of the following I-M170 and comparing with R1b-S21 and later migration period, I do see some correlation, of course it could be in part due to the geographic overlap of FBK.
I-M438/I-M253
(M253 being young enough that it was essentially born in the North shortly after its Urnfield expansion)
I-M436 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)
I-M423 (may have been too young during Urnfield expansion from Balkans and the reason why its frequency is low in Europe)
I-M26 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)
 
It looks like all the major haplogroups in Europe underwent rapid neolithic expansion, not just I1, which I think is consistent with a change in lifestyle or better farming and pastoralism, not necessarily better reproductive fitness or extermination of other groups. These haplogroups just happened to be borne by those who were really good at feeding large families. In this context, once the technological/economic playing field was leveled in Europe, the frequencies of the haplogroups became essentially fixed as population growth becomes approximately equal. It would be interesting to find data suggesting any one haplogroup is expanding at the expense of another in the modern era.
Nicely put, I like this logic. I think we will find few exceptions, but not many. Main factor will always be food production/survival of offspring and economy in general.
 
Looking at maps of the following I-M170 and comparing with R1b-S21 and later migration period, I do see some correlation, of course it could be in part due to the geographic overlap of FBK.
I-M438/I-M253
(M253 being young enough that it was essentially born in the North shortly after its Urnfield expansion)
I-M436 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)
I-M423 (may have been too young during Urnfield expansion from Balkans and the reason why its frequency is low in Europe)
I-M26 (Urnfield derived, later Germanic spread)

I'm not following your subclade analysis, sorry.
"I-M438/I-M253" is all known Haplogroup I.
"I-M436" is unlikely to be Urnfield derived (way too old) although it does seem to be a good candidate to have had a majority of its carriers within the reach of Urnfield at one time.
"I-M423" is definitely older than Urnfield as well, although its most major subclade (I2a-Din) is young. Its frequency is not low in Europe, it is ultrafrequent in the Balkans.
"I-M26" is again too old to be Urnfield derived, and it has a pretty clear west-to-east diversity trend within its primary subclade.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "derived."
 
I do think the main clan of I1 used Aland and the islands off of Turku in Finland to hide-out during the initial R1b sweeps. To me that is the only thing that would explain the current maps. P.S. Sparkey what do you think of the whole "Island Hideout" theory?

I think that if the "Island Hideout" theory was true, we would see higher diversity of Haplogroup I lineages on the islands, and lower correlation between Haplogroup I subclades and subclades of other haplogroups. As is, it seems like in more cases, we're looking at either founder effects (e.g. Sardinian I2-M26 or Finnish I1-L22) or expansions alongside, rather than away from, other haplogroups (e.g. British I1-Z58). Or possibly even both effects at the same time (perhaps I2a-Din in the Balkans?).
 
I'm not following your subclade analysis, sorry.
"I-M438/I-M253" is all known Haplogroup I.
"I-M436" is unlikely to be Urnfield derived (way too old) although it does seem to be a good candidate to have had a majority of its carriers within the reach of Urnfield at one time.
"I-M423" is definitely older than Urnfield as well, although its most major subclade (I2a-Din) is young. Its frequency is not low in Europe, it is ultrafrequent in the Balkans.
"I-M26" is again too old to be Urnfield derived, and it has a pretty clear west-to-east diversity trend within its primary subclade.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "derived."


I mean derived, as in SE Europe for the most part (M-170). I am also fine with the ages of the various clades, however deep, so I'm not implying they mutated the eve of a calvary charge, rather they must have matured for many thousands of years in the Near East/Balkans.
I-M253 is way too young to know what culture in which it originated. Linear Pottery Culture, Funnel Beaker and Urnfield all probably brought M-170 from SE Europe into Central Europe and any one of them could have been father to this particular line, and of course this mutation happened with one man, so it must have taken quite awhile to reach its present locality.


This is the challenge with M170's European distribution analysis.
1) The donor population (SE Europe) was probably large and the population of temperate Europe was mostly small or sparse during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.
2) The donor's origin (I-M170) was probably realitively close to its Near Eastern founding, therefore the donor was at its maximum diversity. (Much unlike R1b)
This could create a picture of what would falsely look like bottlenecking of M-170's European descendants where you have a scatter shot distribution pattern.
3) The population it partly spawned in temperate Europe exploded in the Iron Age and early Medieval period.
4) It's descendants were part of a population of highly successful migrationists

Of course I relish the fact that I-M253's age has been recalculated to the Bronze Age, because of course it was marker for paleolithic Europe just yesterday being found in a supposed relict population.
 
...Of course I relish the fact that I-M253's age has been recalculated to the Bronze Age, because of course it was marker for paleolithic Europe just yesterday being found in a supposed relict population.

Uh oh. You're not one of those R1b supporters that think your clade was the founding paternal line of Europe are you?

And by the way, what paternal haplogroup (or maternal for that matter) ISN'T descended from highly successful migrationists?
 
TE do you seriously think I M170 came to Europe with farming when its age estimates are 25,000-30,000 years old. I1 in Scandinavia so I1a2 L22 deifntley did not come with farming since there in the Neolithic age almost all Scandinavians were hunter gathers. Austomally Finnish and Soumi are closest to Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers and very far from Neolithic and copper age farmers.
 
Uh oh. You're not one of those R1b supporters that think your clade was the founding paternal line of Europe are you?

And by the way, what paternal haplogroup (or maternal for that matter) ISN'T descended from highly successful migrationists?

TE said nothing about R1b being the original paternal lineage of Europe the only person who still thinks that might be Spencer Wells. I don't know that much about world history but it seems like in Native Americans their Y DNA percentages are just chance has nothing to do with conquering or because their branch was more successful than another. But it seems like that is true in Neolithic Europe for G2a, E1b1b(mainly V13), J2b maybe other J2 subclades, and possibly some J1. I think the farmers may have spread by domination and conquering because they had a better way to survive than the hunter gathers. It is crazy how austomal DNA of Neolithic farmer in Southern Sweden and copper age farmer in alps Italy are nearly identical and are closest to modern Sardinia(Sardinia last of the European farmer race). There is a huge obvious difference between farming European and hunter gather European mtDNA and austomal DNA(Reconstructing the Human Past using Ancient and Modern Genomes). And I think most Indo European languages were spread by conquest Germanic Italo Celtic R1b1a2a1a L11, Balto Slavic(Corded ware culture) R1a1a1b1 Z283, Indo Iranian and Tocherian? R1a1a1b2 Z93, maybe more. It seems like to me humans didn't have the organization and technology like Metal weapons to do mass conquering before the bronze age. The link I showed above about the difference between European farmers and hunter gathers. I wish they made the point that it is not like okay modern northern Europeans come from hunter gathers and southern Europeans come from farmers. Its that northern Europeans kept more hunter gather blood probably because their farther north. Also in austomal DNA tests i have no idea how they get the results and all that stuff but i do know the tests with uniquely Europeans groups they are always most popular in the same areas of Europe and so far are dominate in Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers usually their called North Euro or Atlantic Baltic. They probably used to be 100% in Europe before the Neolithic age and I think results from St. Forvar(mtDNA U4b1) 8,673 year old hunter gather in Sweden might be evidence of that.
 
Uh oh. You're not one of those R1b supporters that think your clade was the founding paternal line of Europe are you?

And by the way, what paternal haplogroup (or maternal for that matter) ISN'T descended from highly successful migrationists?

Ok, you got me, but I mean in relative terms. And quite honestly to say that R1a and R1b haven't had a numerically explosive and very wide migratory territory in relative terms I think would be inaccurate.

Basically my point was that many clades I-M170 dispersed in Europe were in fact spread with Indo-Europeans from SE Europe and the Balkans. I think clades of M170 may have begun to spread in the early Linear Band Ware culture and was probably highly represented in the Balkan "Vinca" culture, but I sincerely doubt that it was present in Europe before the Neolithic.
 
No; the indo-Europeans belonged solely to the R branch of the y-DNA tree: certainly R1's a and b and possibly R2 as well. The first European males seem to have belonged to hg I whereas the second arrivals to Europe where probably R of the R1b variety.
 
Basically my point was that many clades I-M170 dispersed in Europe were in fact spread with Indo-Europeans from SE Europe and the Balkans. I think clades of M170 may have begun to spread in the early Linear Band Ware culture and was probably highly represented in the Balkan "Vinca" culture, but I sincerely doubt that it was present in Europe before the Neolithic.

I don't see this at all upon close inspection of the subclades. I'm guessing you mean something like:

Neolithic farmers from the East
M26

Indo-Europeans
M436
M423

??? What are all these doing having their highest diversity in Europe if they were late arrivals???
L1294 ("F")
L880 ("NF")
L1286 ("Western" & "Alpine")
L596
L416
I1

It doesn't make sense to me to posit I as post-Neolithic based on the number of little ancient subclades in Europe, but not outside of Europe. R1b, for example, doesn't see that pattern at all, as it has no real ancient subclade diversity and few outliers in Europe, but lots of that in West Asia. I, on the other hand, has a great deal of subclade diversity and outliers in Europe, but little to speak of in West Asia. And that's not to mention that the M26 diversity pattern is West-to-East and has been shown to have existed in the Neolithic, indicating that it was in the West at the beginning of the Neolithic.
 

This thread has been viewed 67782 times.

Back
Top