Old Europeans are R1b, R1a, I and N (Kalevi Wiik)

[Garrick]

One of the participants of the forum, Neander, an Albanian from Montenegro, expressed his complete disagreement about the work of American scientists Klyosov who claims that the R1a Balkans exist 11.600 years ago.

And in debate he expressed his view that haplogroups R and N are Mongolian.

R1a is of mongolian origin. And they originally were mongolian people, but, as for Ev13 it is not before 4700 years ago that came,

even it didnt came here, but it was evolved here, in the mesolithic, or at least in neolithic, it is linked to J2b, and are together since neolithic.

We know that Slavs came in Ballkan, I2a2 came in Balkan togethere. It is simple. Others are bullshit.

i am sorry, there is no out of africa migration after mesolithic.

R1a is brother of R1b, toGether the sons of R1, it is son of R which in turn is birther of Q (amerindian-siberian haoplogroup).

N O P Q R are monogoloid haplogroups.

R1a is of Mongolian origin, because all they N O P Q R are kindred to eachother.

R1a and R1b became white people after they intermarried with local women in Europe.

I think this logic is not correct. I refered the work:

Kalevi Wiik

Where Did European Men Come From

www.jogg.info/41/Wiik1.pdf

Cit.

“(a) Those who are Old Europeans in the sense that, at the start of the LGM, their paternal lineages already were in Europe and they came to the four refuges when they were forced out of northern Europe. They were first to repopulate Europe after the LGM and they formed the bulk of the present European male population.”

Cit.

“The frequency of the Old Europeans will be considered here as the sum of R1b + R1a + I + N”

According Wiik Old Europeans are R1b, R1a, I and N.


I would like the opinions be supported by relevant sources.

[sparkey]

I think the source you linked gets a few things wrong. In particular, this seems far off:

About 25 kya one branch of Clan R1, Clan R1b, reached Iberia and the Atlantic Coast, and somewhat later Clan R1a branched from R1 and became common in the present-day Ukraine.

The dominant strain of R1b in Europe is nowhere near that old, it's closer to 6000 years old. See ISOGG. And European R1a, although older, is also not as old as that, arising closer to 18,500, possibly in Asia (ISOGG again).

What that means for Old Europeans and the Slavs: Haplogroup I was dominant in Europe before the Neolithic expansion, and R1a/R1b are later arrivals. R1a has a strong correlation with the spread of Slavic languages, indicating that R1a is the more "Slavic" haplogroup, having more recent Asian origins, and I2a is the more anciently European haplogroup, but probably had many of its peoples adopt Slavic languages as R1a peoples migrated their direction.

I think using the term "Mongolian" confuses the issue. If we must use an ethnic term for R1a, I think "Indo-European" is fairly appropriate.

[Garrick]

I think the source you linked gets a few things wrong. In particular, this seems far off:



The dominant strain of R1b in Europe is nowhere near that old, it's closer to 6000 years old. See ISOGG. And European R1a, although older, is also not as old as that, arising closer to 18,500, possibly in Asia (ISOGG again).

What that means for Old Europeans and the Slavs: Haplogroup I was dominant in Europe before the Neolithic expansion, and R1a/R1b are later arrivals. R1a has a strong correlation with the spread of Slavic languages, indicating that R1a is the more "Slavic" haplogroup, having more recent Asian origins, and I2a is the more anciently European haplogroup, but probably had many of its peoples adopt Slavic languages as R1a peoples migrated their direction.

I think using the term "Mongolian" confuses the issue. If we must use an ethnic term for R1a, I think "Indo-European" is fairly appropriate.

I think it is completely wrong to say the R haplogroup is Mongolian (not to say anything more difficult), also for N, etc.


I love Kalevi Wiik, although the times you mentioned, especially for haplogroup R, can be quite different.

I think his papers are very good for reading and learning, especially for those who are just entering into this matter, and later, as one progresses more will be learned, but the value of Wiik work still remains.

[sparkey]

I think it is completely wrong to say the R haplogroup is Mongolian (not to say anything more difficult), also for N, etc.


I love Kalevi Wiik, although the times you mentioned, especially for haplogroup R, can be quite different.

I think his papers are very good for reading and learning, especially for those who are just entering into this matter, and later, as one progresses more will be learned, but the value of Wiik work still remains.

Yeah, "Mongolian" as a term should be restricted to ethnic Mongolians, I think. Even "Mongoloid" doesn't work for R1a/R1b/N, I don't think.

The article you linked was informative but I feel that his use of the older estimates for the haplogroups led him down the wrong path somewhat in relating haplogroups to ancient peoples. I haven't gone looking for his work before. Does he have anything more recent than 2008 that addresses the lack of diversity in European R1b in particular?

[Taranis]

Both R1b and R1a are clearly not 'Old European'.

Both are absent in the Linear Potter Culture, R1a has been found in Corded Ware, and the oldest finding of R1b (thus far) is within the Urnfield Culture.

[sparkey]

Both R1b and R1a are clearly not 'Old European'.

Both are absent in the Linear Potter Culture, R1a has been found in Corded Ware, and the oldest finding of R1b (thus far) is within the Urnfield Culture.

Yup. And even the Urnfield culture sample found mostly I2b. That was probably due to the small size of the sample not being representative, but I can imagine that even that late, the I to R ratio was still more in favor of I than it is today.

[Taranis]

Yup. And even the Urnfield culture sample found mostly I2b. That was probably due to the small size of the sample not being representative, but I can imagine that even that late, the I to R ratio was still more in favor of I than it is today.

To be honest, I expect that most of such samples are going to tell us little about the relative abundance of the various Haplogroups compared to each other inside ancient populations, but it tells us about what we can find in general. But yeah, it's possible too that Haplogroup I was considerably more abundant 3000 years ago than it is today.

[Garrick]

Both R1b and R1a are clearly not 'Old European'.

Both are absent in the Linear Potter Culture, R1a has been found in Corded Ware, and the oldest finding of R1b (thus far) is within the Urnfield Culture.

Taranis
As the Kalevi Wiik wanted to say that there are Old Europeans in the narrow sense, and they are the I carriers. And in a broader sense, and they are R1b, R1a, and N.

(And may be he could include G?)

I suppose that you think that R1b, R1a and N are not Mongolian.

How do you think is the best call R as Indo-European or otherwise? And N?

[Taranis]

Taranis
As the Kalevi Wiik wanted to say that there are Old Europeans in the narrow sense, and they are the I carriers. And in a broader sense, and they are R1b, R1a, and N.

(And may be he could include G?)

I suppose that you think that R1b, R1a and N are not Mongolian.

How do you think is the best call R as Indo-European or otherwise? And N?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Haplogroup G, from the current looks of it, is probably Neolithic in origin (it is present in the Linear Pottery Culture, along with, strangely enough, Haplogroup F!), and may have originated in Anatolia or the Caucasus. In any case, R1b and R1a are certainly not "Mongolian", though they may very well have originated in Central Asia. Regarding the Indo-Europeans, I really think only R1a1a and R1b-M269 are associated with the Indo-Europeans, because other major branches of R1b (M73 and V88) clearly predate the Indo-European migrations and are not associated with them at all.

Lastly, regarding Haplogroup N, in my opinion (well, European Haplogroup N) is associated with the Uralic-speaking peoples.

[LeBrok]

Well summarized Taranis.

[how yes no 2]

To define old people we need reference point.
Compared to haplogroup I, R1a is not among old Europeans, but when compared to haplogroup E, R1a are old Europeans in sense that they have been present in part of Europe (Balkan) at least 11500 years ago, which is before any of the estimates of how long is haplogroup E being in Europe...

[sparkey]

To define old people we need reference point.
Compared to haplogroup I, R1a is not among old Europeans, but when compared to haplogroup E, R1a are old Europeans in sense that they have been present in part of Europe (Balkan) at least 11500 years ago, which is before any of the estimates of how long is haplogroup E being in Europe...

Whether or not R1a reached the Balkans that long ago (I doubt this but have read some of your arguments in favor of it), R1a has indeed been in Europe a long time, at least longer than R1b. It seems that they are likely candidates to have been in the area of modern-day Ukraine by the beginning of the Neolithic, before the spread of Corded Ware.

[Garrick]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Haplogroup G, from the current looks of it, is probably Neolithic in origin (it is present in the Linear Pottery Culture, along with, strangely enough, Haplogroup F!), and may have originated in Anatolia or the Caucasus. In any case, R1b and R1a are certainly not "Mongolian", though they may very well have originated in Central Asia. Regarding the Indo-Europeans, I really think only R1a1a and R1b-M269 are associated with the Indo-Europeans, because other major branches of R1b (M73 and V88) clearly predate the Indo-European migrations and are not associated with them at all.

Lastly, regarding Haplogroup N, in my opinion (well, European Haplogroup N) is associated with the Uralic-speaking peoples.

Taranis
short but succinct analysis, reputation.

It is a problem of generalization and classification and how it is difficult for scientists.

The scientists included in such efforts are aware of it, certainly, and Kalevi Wiik looked at many issues in an effort to shape his solution.

Let the topic and discussions encourage participants if they consider they can contribute to effort to improve existing or provide a new proposal.

[Taranis]

Well summarized Taranis.

Taranis
short but succinct analysis, reputation.

It is a problem of generalization and classification and how it is difficult for scientists.

The scientists included in such efforts are aware of it, certainly, and Kalevi Wiik looked at many issues in an effort to shape his solution.

Let the topic and discussions encourage participants if they consider they can contribute to effort to improve existing or provide a new proposal.

Thanks folks.

In general, the outline I gave only reflects approximately the current point of knowledge, and without a doubt, it will have to be refined or modified in the future as new informations come up. Particularly critical questions for understand the genetic history of Europe are the Beaker-Bell and the Funnelbeaker cultures, in my opinion.

[willy]

the Beaker-Bell are Y G or YJ2 peoples and the Funnelbeaker cultures are Y I people in my opinion.
So Y R1b specially R L23 are the real paleolithic people of Europe nothing to do with the Indo Europeans the real Indo Europeans are the Slavic people R1a the true Indo Aryan people of India and Iran the French Spanish Germans Basques R1b1b2 have nothing to do with the Aryan language or origin

[Taranis]

the Beaker-Bell are Y G or YJ2 peoples and the Funnelbeaker cultures are Y I people in my opinion.
So Y R1b specially R L23 are the real paleolithic people of Europe nothing to do with the Indo Europeans the real Indo Europeans are the Slavic people R1a the true Indo Aryan people of India and Iran the French Spanish Germans Basques R1b1b2 have nothing to do with the Aryan language or origin

How did you come up with that? R1b is impossible to be Paleolithic in origin, since all it's ancient subclades are found outside of Europe.

Haplogroup G is definitely known to be of Neolithic origin, predating Beaker-Bell by several millennia. Haplogroup I1 and I2 is probably Paleolithic. J2, by it's distribution pattern, is utterly impossible to be associated with Beaker-Bell, and it's probably Neolithic in origin.

There has to be some association of R1b-M269 with the Indo-European languages, otherwise it's impossible to explain the western branches of the Indo-European languages (Celtic, Germanic, Italic).

[how yes no 2]

There has to be some association of R1b-M269 with the Indo-European languages, otherwise it's impossible to explain the western branches of the Indo-European languages (Celtic, Germanic, Italic).

I think R+I mix existed and was PIE long time ago...
than it was split in two parts for long times (e.g. ice age in different refuges)... and one gave R1b+I1 other R1a+I2, this gave two flavours of IE: kentum and satem..

alternative that would exclude R1b from spreading IE is that it was spread by haplogroup I (probably both I1 and I2 branches, though I2 might do lot by itself due to I2b and I2a1 spread to north and south areas) and R1a...

[willy]

I think R+I mix existed and was PIE long time ago...
than it was split in two parts for long times (e.g. ice age in different refuges)... and one gave R1b+I1 other R1a+I2, this gave two flavours of IE: kentum and satem..

alternative that would exclude R1b from spreading IE is that it was spread by haplogroup I (probably both I1 and I2 branches, though I2 might do lot by itself due to I2b and I2a1 spread to north and south areas) and R1a...

R L23 is 12000 years old and dispersed in all Eurasian continent from west Europe to central Asia R1b1 is Paleolithic . Y G Y J2 Y R1a are Indo Europeans but not R1b1b2
it became IE but it was NOT initially ALL the European subclades of R1b1b2 are emerging IN Europe it means NOT recent migration => nothing to do with the IE .

[Taranis]

R L23 is 12000 years old and dispersed in all Eurasian continent from west Europe to central Asia R1b1 is Paleolithic .

Actually, the value I have for R1b-L23 is much, much younger only about 7000 years.

Y G Y J2 Y R1a are Indo Europeans but not R1b1b2
it became IE but it was NOT initially

Haplogroup G and J2 have nothing to do with Indo-Europeans. J2 originated in the fertile crescent. Haplogroup G originated either in Anatolia or the Caucasus, and both probably predate the spread of the Indo-European languages.

I agree however that probably, R1b-M269 wasn't originally Indo-European and only became it later, and that instead it was more probably the carriers of R1a1a which were the original Indo-Europeans.

ALL the European subclades of R1b1b2 are emerging IN Europe it means NOT recent migration => nothing to do with the IE .

While it is true that all European subclades of R1b emerged inside Europe, this suggests a massive founder effect, which works much better with either Neolithic or Beaker-Bell origin. However, given how R1b is also absent from Neolithic samples (Linear Pottery Culture), the best model currently is indeed Beaker-Bell. Also, consider that the most ancient example of R1b thus far comes from the Urnfield Culture, and that R1b was utterly absent in Europe in the Neolithic.

[iapodos]

Let us see map of Neolithic and pre Neolithic cultures of Europe, before arriving both R1b and R1a (Indoeuropeans).

It is clear that there are two main regions of Paleolithic Europeans:

Ertebolle culture in Scandinavia- precursors of I1
Dnieper Donets culture in Ukraine and Belarus- precursors of I2a2 Din

There is also some paleolithic cultures in the western Europe which are precursors of I2a3, I2a1.

Printed Cardium Pottery culture in Italy and surrounding areas could easily be explained with migration of J2 population.

Other neolithic cultures on Balkan and Danube basin to Netherlands could be connected with F, G, E1b haplogroups.

Indoeuropeans could be associated with two similar cultures:
R1b- Bell Beaker culture in Western Europe
R1a- Corded Ware culture in Eastern, Central and Northern Europe

Recently it was published interesting paper which proves that Neolithic an Paleolithic communities comunicating, though not living together.

This is part of scientific paper from Dienekes site:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/02...change-in.html

Human migration and cultural change in the origins of European farmers
Here is the press release, I'll update the post when the paper appears on the journal site.
Origins of Farming in Europe Result of Human Migration and Cultural Change, Study Suggests
It has long been debated as to whether the transition from a largely hunter-gatherer to an agricultural subsistence strategy in Europe was the result of the migration of farmers from the Near East and Anatolia, or whether this transition was primarily cultural in nature. A new study, co-authored by researchers at University College Cork and the University of Kent suggests that the prehistoric adoption of farming practices in outlying regions of Europe, Scandinavia, the Baltic, European Russia and the Ukraine, was the result of cultural diffusion.
Results provide evidence that indigenous hunter-gatherers in central Europe were largely replaced or assimilated by incoming Near-Eastern farmers in the core region of south-east and Central Europe. However, hunter-gatherer populations survived in outlying regions and adopted some of the cultural practices from neighbouring farming communities.
...
The new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, B uses craniometric data from 30 Mesolithic and Neolithic populations to address these questions, as it has previously been shown that cranial measurements can be used as a reliable proxy for genetic information. The results show that while the initial transition to agriculture in central Europe was the result of migrating farmers from the Near-East and Anatolia, agricultural practices were adopted by indigenous hunter-gatherer populations in outlying regions of Europe. Therefore, instead of employing two competing and mutually exclusive models of biological versus cultural diffusion, a mosaic model of both biological and cultural diffusion is a more appropriate model for this demographic change across Europe as a whole
UPDATE:
Looking at the cranial distances table the distance between Çatal Höyük and Nea Nikomedeia 0.00001, which could very well be the smallest in the table leaves little doubt about the affinities of the Neolithic in Macedonia. It is unfortunate that other series from the rest of Greece were not included, but this may not be as important in the context of this paper, as the Neolithic cultures of the Balkans would be derived from those of northern Greece.
Another point of interest is to pay close attention to the different sites. For example, the Russian Neolithic is a late 2,400BC site from NW Russia belonging to the Pit-Comb Ware culture. This culture is labeled Neolithic on account of its use of pottery (one of the hallmarks of the Neolithic), but is essentially a boreal culture of pottery using hunter-gatherers.
Another point of interest is that the Dnieper-Donetz samples from Dereivka and Aleksandrija have close parallels to the Portuguese Mesolithic! This tends to reinforce the view that has emerged from the study of mtDNA of a fairly homogeneous pre-farming substratum that stretched from the Atlantic well to the east.
The Mesolithic and some Forest "Neolithic" samples of hunter-gatherers cluster together, described by the authors as follows:
In the circum-Baltic area, a number of ‘Forest Neolithic’ cultures emerged during the seventh millennium BP, continuing the Mesolithic hunting–gathering–fishing lifestyle by incorporating wild fauna and edible plant species into their diets but also living in semi-permanent locales [23,26].
Proc. R. Soc. B doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2678
Craniometric data support a mosaic model of demic and cultural Neolithic diffusion to outlying regions of Europe
Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, and Ron Pinhasi
The extent to which the transition to agriculture in Europe was the result of biological (demic) diffusion from the Near East or the adoption of farming practices by indigenous hunter–gatherers is subject to continuing debate. Thus far, archaeological study and the analysis of modern and ancient European DNA have yielded inconclusive results regarding these hypotheses. Here we test these ideas using an extensive craniometric dataset representing 30 hunter–gatherer and farming populations. Pairwise population craniometric distance was compared with temporally controlled geographical models representing evolutionary hypotheses of biological and cultural transmission. The results show that, following the physical dispersal of Near Eastern/Anatolian farmers into central Europe, two biological lineages were established with limited gene flow between them. Farming communities spread across Europe, while hunter–gatherer communities located in outlying geographical regions adopted some cultural elements from the farmers. Therefore, the transition to farming in Europe did not involve the complete replacement of indigenous hunter–gatherer populations despite significant gene flow from the Southwest Asia. This study suggests that a mosaic process of dispersal of farmers and their ideas was operating in outlying regions of Europe, thereby reconciling previously conflicting results obtained from genetic and archaeological studies.


And interesting words of Maria Gimbutas considering contacts of old Europeans and Indoeuropeans in the region of Ukraine:

But the two racial types coexisted for long, though still culturally distinct: “Kurgan II, ca. 4000-3500 BC. Materials from this period demonstrate continuous coexistence with the Dniepr-Donets culture: two different physical types (both of ‘Cro-Magnon C’ type, but with the Kurgan people being more gracile) and burial customs (collective burials in trenchlike pits characteristic of the Dniepr-Donets culture, and single burials of Kurgan type) were proved to be present even in the same villages.”19 This is precisely the type of coexistence which renders cultural assimilation and transmission of the IE language to pre-IE populations possible.

[how yes no 2]

Dnieper Donets culture in Ukraine and Belarus- precursors of I2a2 Din

actually, Dnieper-Don is probably R1a... if I2a was that northeast it would be quite common among Baltic people, but is not while R1a is...

while I2a is along Dniester and Danube, thus better mapped to western (eastern as well?) linear pottery...

I2* is found in line from Italy to Denmark... and from Black sea to Baltic... line from Italy to Denmark is too far away from Dnieper-Don culture...





some I2a is also found along Rhine...
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...531#post367531

Rhine - Danube



Dniester



Dnieper



Don



I2a2


R1a

how yes no
It is fundamentally question about old I language.

I gives five hypotheses:

1) the men from the Vinca civilization belonged R1a

2) but if it is no true then Vincans belonged to a branch I.

3) it is possible that Vincans were carriers I and R1a

4) if Vincans were carriers I haplogroup, or mixed I and R1a haplogroup, that claim from the roots may change our knowledge of the Slavic language and culture

5) if 2) or 3) is true members of Clan R1a (who came from central Asia to Balkan) they have adopted an older culture and language I people.

It is a bold claim that R1a came from Asia and they have received from I Clans (old Serb?) language and culture but this is just one possible scenario that explains the series of contradictions that exist between Old Europeans I and Indo Europeans R1a and between Slavs R1a and some other Asian R1a.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...967#post362967

actually, Vinca belongs to culture that shows spread along Morava-Vardar river valleys...
E-V13 might be more likely than R1a or I2a2...




Morava


Vardar


E-V13


Vinca culture