R1b-U152 map

[Taranis]

you see in caste society castes do not mix... they can mix with invaders who stay long time there....Brahmins of India are believed to origin from Aryans
68% R1a1, 21% J2, 16% H1, 3.6% G2a....R1a is very present in various castes, while J2 and G2a are present only in Brahmins....

The casts generally did not mix with each other, but, what about outsiders? How about the Greeks, the Arabs, the Timurids, the Mughals? A lot happened in India, a lot of ways for these to enter.

so, R1a probably came from later Indo-Scythians... and because they were ruling the area for quite a while itR1a did largely overtake brahmin's caste YDNA as well...but still 21% of brahmin caste stayed J2. I have explained that in
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26093-Indo-Aryans

Yes, but what language spoke the Scythians?

yes, but that is about steppe people like Scythians...
in same steppe there were Turkic people as well and from what I see they were as well R1a...

Most of Central Asia in Antiquity spoke Scythian languages, which are part of the Indo-Iranic branch. Large parts of Central Asia actually spoke Indo-European right up to the Turkic migrations.

it is not coincidence, but it can also say that part of R1a people have accepted IE language early in their history... so it was probably language of Scythians and Indo-Scythians... however, that doesnot necesserily implies R1a was source of the PIE...
there is problem with R1a that it cannot explain PIE in Europe without including R1b...But R1b in Asia and Africa is largely not IE...

Geez, you are hepelessly oversimplifying things there. European R1b is almost exclusively of the subclade R1b-M269, wheras in Asia you have R1b-M73, and in Africa you have R1b-V88. Given the approximate age of these various R1b subclades, it's not a surprise only R1b-M269 is associated with the Indo-Europeans, because the split of these clades predates the Indo-European migrations by many millennia.

my guess comes from me estimating that haplogroup I origin is in Persia

Haplogroup I is probably of Paleolithic origin, and originates in Europe. If you look at the subclades of I, and it's approximate ages, this should be obvious.

it is extremely consistent for forum story... I cannot make a PhD thesis about history and genetics on a forum....

It's a "story", but not one that's consistent with facts.

if Armorica and America sounded more alike with clear transition from one to another, if the two areas had same principal deities, if there was atested movement from Armorica to America, and if there was no other explanation, yes I would make that proposal.... so, it is not just "it sounds similar" argument as you claim..it is much more...

no offence, but boats were used and horses as well....
obviously Etruscans somewhat later sailed to several times larger distance from Lydia in Asia minor to Umbria in Italy... obviously Indo-Scytians went from north of Caucasus to India... so why would migrations around Black sea be large distance.... same genetics north and south of Black sea, relatively close distances..obviously there must be some relation in culture and perhaps language...

well, let's hope that Yellowstone will not show us how volcanic winter looks like and how much it can last....

Hekla-3 was level 5 of the volcanic explosity index, which is the same scale of Mount St. Helens or Vesuvius, neither caused such a catastophic event.

 

[how yes no 2]

The casts generally did not mix with each other, but, what about outsiders? How about the Greeks, the Arabs, the Timurids, the Mughals? A lot happened in India, a lot of ways for these to enter.

actually, I would like more that R1a were Indo-Aryans... according to Klyosov Euroasian R1a largely origins from ancient old cluster that is present in Serbs...
this would in fact mean that both Scythians and Aryans origin from ancestors of Serbs

but I do not think Aryans were R1a... simply because R1a is present in all castes... while J2 is restricted to Brahmins...

Yes, but what language spoke the Scythians?

as I said it was probably IE..
but that doesnot prove that PIE originally was language of R1a people...

Most of Central Asia in Antiquity spoke Scythian languages, which are part of the Indo-Iranic branch. Large parts of Central Asia actually spoke Indo-European right up to the Turkic migrations.

yes... I agree with that...

Geez, you are hepelessly oversimplifying things there. European R1b is almost exclusively of the subclade R1b-M269, wheras in Asia you have R1b-M73, and in Africa you have R1b-V88. Given the approximate age of these various R1b subclades, it's not a surprise only R1b-M269 is associated with the Indo-Europeans, because the split of these clades predates the Indo-European migrations by many millennia.

no, you do not take in consideration that M269 was already in west Europe in times when PIE people are suggested to enter Europe in currently accepted theories about spread of PIE... so, PIE could have been spread by R1a...but how did it come to southwest Europe where R1a didnot spread? branches of haplogroup I explain it much better...

Haplogroup I is probably of Paleolithic origin, and originates in Europe. If you look at the subclades of I, and it's approximate ages, this should be obvious.

sure, and that is why I*, I1* and I2* we find in middle east and Anatolia....and not in Europe

It's a "story", but not one that's consistent with facts.

actually, this holds more for claims you make here..like that haplogroup I originated in Europe... or that R1a were Aryans, or that R1b-M269 was spreading PIE language...
those are stories... only one of those that is likely is that Aryans were R1a but it is hard to say whether and how much truth is there...
should I laugh now?

Hekla-3 was level 5 of the volcanic explosity index, which is the same scale of Mount St. Helens or Vesuvius, neither caused such a catastophic event.

In case you didnot notice scale is logarithmic...
everything between 1 and 10km3 is class 5 event, between 10 and 100km3 is class 6 event...

if mt.Saint Hellena explosion released 1km3 of volcanic rocks and Hekla3 estimated (how correct can be estimation after so much time?) 7.3 km3, they may be in same class, but Hekla3 was according to estimation 7.3 times larger event....and may have caused much more serious consequences... it is questionable how much ashes in the sky is needed to block sun rays...

well, look at what is so far Fukushima release of radiation and compare it with Chernobyl... they are in same class, but so far the releases of radiation are quite different and effects for people are quite different.....

 

[Taranis]

actually, I would like more that R1a were Indo-Aryans... according to Klyosov Euroasian R1a largely origins from ancient old cluster that is present in Serbs...
this would in fact mean that both Scythians and Aryans origin from ancestors of Serbs

but I do not think Aryans were R1a... simply because R1a is present in all castes... while J2 is restricted to Brahmins...

Actually, J2 is more common in the south of India, which is more descended from the Dravidian rather than the Indo-Aryans.

as I said it was probably IE..
but that doesnot prove that PIE originally was language of R1a people...

We obviously do not know. But given how there's a correlation between four major branches of the Indo-European languages (Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic and Tocharian), it makes things very likely that R1a was carried by the Indo-European migrations. I do not think that they were the only speakers of Indo-European languages because this does not account for three other major branches of Indo-European languages: Italo-Celtic, Greek and Anatolian - and in my opinion R1b-M269 is the best candidate for this.

no, you do not take in consideration that M269 was already in west Europe in times when PIE people are suggested to enter Europe in currently accepted theories about spread of PIE... so, PIE could have been spread by R1a...but how did it come to southwest Europe where R1a didnot spread? branches of haplogroup I explain it much better...

There is absolutely no evidence that M269 was already inside Europe by the time PIE people are suggested to have entered Europe, as you claim. The oldest occurence of R1b in Europe thus far is from the Urnfield Culture (circa 1000 BC).

The linear pottery culture of the Neolithic for instance was shown to be G2a3: no R1b or R1a - both Haplogroups must have entered later.

In my opinion, R1b arrived in Europe with the Beaker-Bell Culture (it's the most likely candidate, in my opinion).

sure, and that is why I*, I1* and I2* we find in middle east and Anatolia....and not in Europe

Links?

actually, this holds more for claims you make here..like that haplogroup I originated in Europe... or that R1a were Aryans, or that R1b-M269 was spreading PIE language...
those are stories... only one of those that is likely is that Aryans were R1a but it is hard to say whether and how much truth is there...
should I laugh now?

Actually there is a lot of evidence backing this up. The age of the various subclades of Haplogroup I fits very well with the last glacial maximum. The only exception is Haplogroup I1, which appears to be the result of an extreme bottleneck: the last common ancestor of I1 correlates quite well with the arrival of the Battle Axe culture in Scandinavia - which was in itself an offshot of the Corded Ware Culture in Central Europe, which is known from ancient DNA samples to be R1a. Despite the last common ancestor I1 being so recent, the last common ancestor of I1 and I2 was near the last glacial maximum - this suggests that there was a massive population bottleneck in Scandinavia, which is also known from mitochondrial DNA samples:

Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians

In case you didnot notice scale is logarithmic...
everything between 1 and 10km3 is class 5 event, between 10 and 100km3 is class 6 event...

if mt.Saint Hellena explosion released 1km3 of volcanic rocks and Hekla3 estimated (how correct can be estimation after so much time?) 7.3 km3, they may be in same class, but Hekla3 was according to estimation 7.3 times larger event....and may have caused much more serious consequences... it is questionable how much ashes in the sky is needed to block sun rays...

well, look at what is so far Fukushima release of radiation and compare it with Chernobyl... they are in same class, but so far the releases of radiation are quite different and effects for people are quite different.....

It is logarithmic, but apparently you didn't notice that certain other eruptions were of larger scales: Pinatubo (1991), Krakatoa (1883) were both level 6, and the Tambora (1815) was level 7, all of these were larger.

 

[how yes no 2]

Actually, J2 is more common in the south of India, which is more descended from the Dravidian rather than the Indo-Aryans.

links?
what about this one:

A principal-components plot of R1a1-M17 Y-microsatellite data (fig. 6) shows several interesting features: (a) one tight population cluster comprising southern Pakistan, Turkey, Greece, Oman, and West Europe; (b) one loose cluster comprising all the Indian tribal and caste populations, with the tribal populations occupying an edge of this cluster; and (c) Central Asia and Turkey occupy intermediate positions. The divergence time between the two clusters was 8–12 KYA. The pattern of clustering does not support the model that the primary source of the R1a1-M17 chromosomes in India was Central Asia or the Indus Valley via Indo-European speakers. Further, the relative position of the Indian tribals (fig. 6), the high microsatellite variance among them (table 12), the estimated age (14 KYA) of microsatellite variation within R1a1 (table 11), and the variance peak in western Eurasia (fig. 4) are entirely inconsistent with a model of recent gene flow from castes to tribes and a large genetic impact of the Indo-Europeans on the autochthonous gene pool of India. Instead, our overall inference is that an early Holocene expansion in northwestern India (including the Indus Valley) contributed R1a1-M17 chromosomes both to the Central Asian and South Asian tribes prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans. The results of our more comprehensive study of Y-chromosome diversity are in agreement with the caveat of Quintana-Murci et al. (2001, p. 541), that “more complex explanations are possible,” rather than their simplistic conclusion that HGs J and R1a1 reflect demic expansions of southwestern Asian Dravidian-speaking farmers and Central Asian Indo-European–speaking pastorialists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/?tool=pmcentrez

Indian R1a1 cluster stretches through all castes and is clearly separated from R1a cluster of Europe, central Asia, Oman and Pakistan cluster...Anatolia cluster is in between...

now 8-12 KY before present is too far in past for Aryans...

this is not suggesting what I thought (that R1a1 comes from Indo-Scythians) but is also not in agreement that it comes from Indo-Aryans as it has entered all castes and much before Indo-Aryans...

besides if you followed my link where I talked of Indo-Aryans, you would see that my guess about J2 comes from archeological sites of Aryans matching well J2 spread...

We obviously do not know. But given how there's a correlation between four major branches of the Indo-European languages (Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranic and Tocharian), it makes things very likely that R1a was carried by the Indo-European migrations. I do not think that they were the only speakers of Indo-European languages because this does not account for three other major branches of Indo-European languages: Italo-Celtic, Greek and Anatolian - and in my opinion R1b-M269 is the best candidate for this.

Actually, there is enough R1a in Greece, Italy and Anatolia for language transfer.... so R1b is not needed for explanation....

There is absolutely no evidence that M269 was already inside Europe by the time PIE people are suggested to have entered Europe, as you claim. The oldest occurence of R1b in Europe thus far is from the Urnfield Culture (circa 1000 BC).

The linear pottery culture of the Neolithic for instance was shown to be G2a3: no R1b or R1a - both Haplogroups must have entered later.

ancient samples are taken in only few places and only very small number of samples...
if you sample now few graves in Finland and Sardinia you might conclude there is only N and I2a1 people in Europe...

In my opinion, R1b arrived in Europe with the Beaker-Bell Culture (it's the most likely candidate, in my opinion).

why don't you base your opinion on papers that estimate time of spread of R1b?
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000285

after studying figure B we can expect that R1b1b2 entered Europe from Asia minor around 7500 - 8000 before present or 5500-6000BC which is much before estimated entrance of PIE speakers...

Links?

for example
"Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions" - Khaled K Abu-Amero1 , Ali Hellani2 , Ana M González3 , Jose M Larruga3 , Vicente M Cabrera3 and Peter A Underhill4
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59

look for I*, I1* and I2* in this table
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59/table/T1

there is I* in Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Anatolia and Pakistan...
not found in Iran according to this but I have seen other results for Iran as well... If there is I* in Pakistan, Persia should show some as well...

I1* and I2a* and I2b* are found in Anatolia which is basis for my assumption that haplgroup I was based in Anatolia for long time and spread to Europe in several waves - I1 as very early wave, I2b somewhat later, and I2a in the end...

Actually there is a lot of evidence backing this up. The age of the various subclades of Haplogroup I fits very well with the last glacial maximum. The only exception is Haplogroup I1, which appears to be the result of an extreme bottleneck: the last common ancestor of I1 correlates quite well with the arrival of the Battle Axe culture in Scandinavia - which was in itself an offshot of the Corded Ware Culture in Central Europe, which is known from ancient DNA samples to be R1a. Despite the last common ancestor I1 being so recent, the last common ancestor of I1 and I2 was near the last glacial maximum - this suggests that there was a massive population bottleneck in Scandinavia, which is also known from mitochondrial DNA samples:

Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians

so? that still doesnot mean that haplogroup I has originated in Europe as it obviously did not considering locations of I*, I1* and I2* in Anatolia and middle east...

and based on what you claim above, the I1 wave might have entered Europe as long ago as immediately after ice age.... as split between I1 and I2 obviously happened in Anatolia, where we find I1* and I2a* and I2b*, and as according to you time of split corresponds to last ice age...
I1 might have been decimated by spread of Battle Axe (R1a?), but that is in domain of guessing.... there could have been other reasons for being in that time close to extinction, e.g. some climate worsening.. hunger often moves peoples.... so Battle Axe expansion could have been also due to some sudden climate worsening...

anyway, can you quote the key sentences in paper that you link to that make basis for conclusions you made...
because already the title of the paper says something completely different - it says there is no continuity of today Scandinavians with neolithic inhabitants, while your story suggest I1 was there all along and it suffered from mean R1a battle axe invaders...

also please give links for estimations you give about earliest common ancestor of I1, and of earliest common ancestor for I1 and I2...

actually, considering lack of continuity between neolithic Scandinavians and modern ones....
I1 could have easily been brought to its current place by Corded ware/Battle axe, together with R1a...
based on few samples you conclude Battle Axe was R1a1 but we do not know if it also had abundance of I1...

correlation between battle axe and I1 spread seems quite good...

It is logarithmic, but apparently you didn't notice that certain other eruptions were of larger scales: Pinatubo (1991), Krakatoa (1883) were both level 6, and the Tambora (1815) was level 7, all of these were larger.

ok, good point...
but tell me how do you estimate amount of volcanic rocks of eruption of volcano 3200 years ago... estimation can easily be off tens of times....

it even does not have to be volcanic winter... maybe giant meteorite did fall somewhere and vulcano eruption was one consequence and 18 year old winter was other....

what we know is that there was 18 year long hunger recorded in time of the eruption of the volcano, and 18 year long winter in story of departure of Lydians to Umbria...
unlikelihood of 18 year old winter repeating several times in short time interval allows us to connect those two events with high probability....

 

[Taranis]

I'm somewhat slow in replying to you because your posts are too long and too awkward to read, and also I have other businesses to do.

But, in a nutshell, consider this however:
- the dates that the paper "A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages" gives are upper margins. Given the absence of R1b in any older samples (Corded Ware and Linear Pottery Culture), it seems very probably it was just not there. Also, the distribution of Haplogroup G in Europe reasonably matches the spread of agriculture.

Ancient DNA samples are statistically more representative of ancient populations than you think, primarily because when taking samples from ancient population we are unlikely to find rare Haplogroups. It therefore is highly probable that if R1b is absent from samples from 5000 BC and 2600 BC, that it was indeed either absent from these populations or rare. Everything suggests a massive founder effect of R1b in Western Europe, especially if you consider the relatively similar age for the various major R1b-M269 subclades. This pattern is non-consistent with the Neolithic farmers, but consistent with the rapid spread of the Beaker-Bell Culture.

Regarding J2, you woefully ignore a significant number of ancient languages, in the Near-East, ALL of which are non-Indo-European:
- Hattian language
- Hurrian language
- Urartian language
- Sumerian language
- Elamite language

(note that Hurrian and Urartian are thought to be part of the same language family) All of them are non-Indo-European, all of them were agglutinative languages (verymuch unlike Indo-European), and all of them are found in the general context of J2. It's far, far more likely that the people who predominantly were speakers of non-Indo-European languages than that they were of Indo-European languages.

I should also add the presence of the Eteocretan language (the as-of-yet-undeciphered language of Linear A) in Greece.

Regarding the Elamite language, it has also been proposed that the Dravidian language family is related with the Elamite language (the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis). Note that the Dravidian languages are also agglutinative.

Regarding the "18 year long winter", I find it funny how you ride on claims of Herodotus like that. The guy also wrote of giant ants living in Asia, and made a few other impossible claims. I mean, seriously, a meterorite impact? That's just... funny imagination.

 

[spongetaro]

On"origins, age, spread and ethnic association of European haplogroups and subclades" about Mtdna J and T, Maciamo wrote :
"J1 is common throughout the Middle East, as far as Central Asia and around Ukraine. In the rest of Europe it is mostly confined to Germanic countries (mimicking the distribution of Y-DNA haplogroup I1)"

 

[LeBrok]

Great discussion guys, I’ve enjoyed it.
I must say that I like Taranis arguments and logic, though How Yes No brings always intriguing arguments that make you think. Too bad they are mostly too far fetched and fall apart under closer scrutiny, like reading Da Vinci Code.
I’m pretty sure that you get few things right, just because you are making your hypothesis in astonishing rate.

 

[LeBrok]

What do you propose was original European haplo before 5000 years ago, before I and R spread here from Asia as you mentioned?

 

[how yes no 2]

What do you propose was original European haplo before 5000 years ago, before I and R spread here from Asia as you mentioned?

5000 years ago parts of R1b, R1a and I haplogroups were very likely already somewhere in what we call Europe... and there were other haplogroups as well...

but there is no such a thing as original European haplogroup....
it is just a matter when which branch entered Europe (mostly from Anatolia)
Europe was mostly not inhabited during ice age, and later people who were nearby naturally expanded as more land was ice free... so, we can only talk about order of settling Europe, not about original European haplogroup...

if you have a need to identify original settlers of Europe than those were Neanderthals rather than humans...

 

[how yes no 2]

On"origins, age, spread and ethnic association of European haplogroups and subclades" about Mtdna J and T, Maciamo wrote :
"J1 is common throughout the Middle East, as far as Central Asia and around Ukraine. In the rest of Europe it is mostly confined to Germanic countries (mimicking the distribution of Y-DNA haplogroup I1)"

that is interesting clue...but I am not sure how to interpret it...

here is a wild guess:

in general, woman do not migrate independently from man, and when they do it is to be expected that they migrate at slower pace, expanding slowly...
so MtDNA J was probably slowly expanding slowly from middle east to central Asia... I1 must have picked them up on their own way from middle east to Europe e.g. somewhere in Anatolia and took all of them...if after the departure of I1 and MtDNA J to Europe there was no more Mtdna J in Anatolia than next waves that settled Europe from Anatolia with other YDNA could not have paired with MtDNA J....

 

[Taranis]

5000 years ago parts of R1b, R1a and I haplogroups were very likely already somewhere in what we call Europe... and there were other haplogroups as well...

but there is no such a thing as original European haplogroup....
it is just a matter when which branch entered Europe (mostly from Anatolia)
Europe was mostly not inhabited during ice age, and later people who were nearby naturally expanded as more land was ice free... so, we can only talk about order of settling Europe, not about original European haplogroup...

if you have a need to identify original settlers of Europe than those were Neanderthals rather than humans...

Sorry, but with all due respect, that is just nonsense because you are ignoring a lot of scientific fact. Europe was inhabited by anatomically modern humans since circa 35,000 years ago. There's a time period of approximately 10,000 years during which Neanderthals and Homo sapiens co-existed in Europe. During the last glacial maxima, there were refugees on the Balkans and on the Iberian penninsula. You might want to look up the Solutrean and Gravettian Cultures. Haplogroup I is the most probable candiate for a Haplogroup that developed with these European "aboriginals" (R1b was previously thought to be descended from the Iberian glacial refuge, but this has been disproven since then), especially because it's most closely related outgroup is Haplogroup J, which is centered around the Middle East. If you claim that Haplogroup I isn't 'aboriginal', you must argue that the aboriginal hunter-gatherers of Europe were completely wiped out by the combined effects of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic migrations.

 

[how yes no 2]

I'm somewhat slow in replying to you because your posts are too long and too awkward to read, and also I have other businesses to do.

But, in a nutshell, consider this however:
- the dates that the paper "A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages" gives are upper margins. Given the absence of R1b in any older samples (Corded Ware and Linear Pottery Culture), it seems very probably it was just not there. Also, the distribution of Haplogroup G in Europe reasonably matches the spread of agriculture.

Corded ware and linear potery are both far from covering whole Europe... and exist in completely different times....
both are poorly sampled with few samples from each.... if you take 20 samples from 3 family graveyards in one mid size country of Europe now, does that give you good idea of distribution of haplogroups in Europe?


in time of linear pottery R1b was obviously more south from it, and in time of Corded ware it was obviously already west of it...as you can see here

linear pottery flourished 5500BC - 4500BC or 7500-6500 before present
from diagram above 7500 before present R1b1b2 is still in Anatolia...than it starts spreading to Thrace ...it takes first southern root to Italy... so, it was obviously not part of linear pottery... it reaches Germany only in 6500 before present which means exactly when linear pottery ends...

The Corded Ware culture culture is much later from 2900–2500 BC thus around 5000 before present till 4500 before present... in that time R1b1b2 was for long time in west Europe, which means corded ware probably did push R1b1b2 somewhat to west...


not being Corded ware (2900-2500 BC in northeast Europe) and not being linear pottery (5500 -4500 BC in central Europe) is not the same as not being in Europe at that time....that is so painfully far fetched conclusion and oversimplified thinking.......

Ancient DNA samples are statistically more representative of ancient populations than you think, primarily because when taking samples from ancient population we are unlikely to find rare Haplogroups. It therefore is highly probable that if R1b is absent from samples from 5000 BC and 2600 BC, that it was indeed either absent from these populations or rare. Everything suggests a massive founder effect of R1b in Western Europe, especially if you consider the relatively similar age for the various major R1b-M269 subclades. This pattern is non-consistent with the Neolithic farmers, but consistent with the rapid spread of the Beaker-Bell Culture.

make a map with all locations and times and number of samples of ancient DNA than you will get better picture of what is probable and what not.... you obviously do not take chronology in account....

Regarding J2, you woefully ignore a significant number of ancient languages, in the Near-East, ALL of which are non-Indo-European:
- Hattian language
- Hurrian language
- Urartian language
- Sumerian language
- Elamite language

(note that Hurrian and Urartian are thought to be part of the same language family) All of them are non-Indo-European, all of them were agglutinative languages (verymuch unlike Indo-European), and all of them are found in the general context of J2.

I would like more explanation why you think they are found in general context of J2... study some maps before making such firm far fetched conclusions...
also the common point for languages you put together seems to be that they are non-IE... what kind of overly simplified binary logic is that? it's like putting together grandmas and frogs cause they are not cherry trees...

Regarding the "18 year long winter", I find it funny how you ride on claims of Herodotus like that. The guy also wrote of giant ants living in Asia, and made a few other impossible claims.

Herodotous wrote down what he was told....
Lydians told him story about 18 year old hunger and part of people departing to Umbria... I do not think story is invented...besides YDNA in Etruscan's land fits well with Lydia...you are aware same is confirmed for cattle... so he was not lied to, Etruscans did move from Lydia to Umbria... and if reason is stated to be 18 year old hunger...than why should we question that.... you can than question anything ever written in history....

I mean, seriously, a meterorite impact? That's just... funny imagination.

you have so literal mind... point was that 18 year old hunger reported by Herodotous regarding departure of Lydians to Umbria coincides with similar 18 year long hunger that is reported to coincide in time with Hekla 3...and that is what matter...both events being 18 years old makes them unlikely to be different events...whether Hekla 3 caused hunger is completely irrelevant...meteorite is an example of other things that could have cause it... though I am pretty sure that cause was Hekla 3 as there is absolutely no way to precisely estimate amount of volcanic rocks thrown out by volcano 3200 years ago, so putting eruption in class 5 is just wild guess of some scientists.......

 

[how yes no 2]

Sorry, but with all due respect, that is just nonsense because you are ignoring a lot of scientific fact. Europe was inhabited by anatomically modern humans since circa 35,000 years ago. There's a time period of approximately 10,000 years during which Neanderthals and Homo sapiens co-existed in Europe. During the last glacial maxima, there were refugees on the Balkans and on the Iberian penninsula. You might want to look up the Solutrean and Gravettian Cultures. Haplogroup I is the most probable candiate for a Haplogroup that developed with these European "aboriginals" (R1b was previously thought to be descended from the Iberian glacial refuge, but this has been disproven since then), especially because it's most closely related outgroup is Haplogroup J, which is centered around the Middle East. If you claim that Haplogroup I isn't 'aboriginal', you must argue that the aboriginal hunter-gatherers of Europe were completely wiped out by the combined effects of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic migrations.

again, literal mind..... read carefully what I wrote....
Europe was mostly uninhabited during ice age...

that was not even the point of the post....
point was that 5000 years before present R1a, R1b and I are most likely all already in Europe...and so are other haplogroups like J2 and G2a...

btw. are you aware how small part of Europe were ice refuges...
are you aware that both Balkan one and the one around Black sea were just occasional extensions of Anatolia settlement....which means same population was in those two refuges and in Anatolia

there were no humans in most of the Europe during ice age and it was resettled mostly from Anatolia...
it is hard enough to guess in which order Europe was resettled... going in times before ice age is completely useless as there is no continuity of settlement...

so, again, there are no original human inhabitants of Europe...
haplogroup I came to existance probably in middle east and certainly not in Europe....
Aryans were most likely J2 people
R1b was clearly in Europe in same time when linear pottery exists and much before Corded ware....

last glacial maximum ended like 10000 years before present...I2a could have been splitted during the last glacial maximum into I2a1 in Iberian refuge and I2a2 in Anatolian-Balkan-Black sea area....

but that doesnot make haplogroup I originating in Europe as I*, I1*, and I2* are found in Anatolia and I* throughout middle east... nor it does make it original inhabitant of Europe...it means that I2a was probably in Europe before last glacial maximum...that is alll...

 

[Wilhelm]

5000 years ago parts of R1b, R1a and I haplogroups were very likely already somewhere in what we call Europe... and there were other haplogroups as well...

but there is no such a thing as original European haplogroup....
it is just a matter when which branch entered Europe (mostly from Anatolia)
Europe was mostly not inhabited during ice age, and later people who were nearby naturally expanded as more land was ice free... so, we can only talk about order of settling Europe, not about original European haplogroup...

if you have a need to identify original settlers of Europe than those were Neanderthals rather than humans...

The maternal mtDNA V is the only haplogroup considered to originate in Europe.

 

[LeBrok]

last glacial maximum ended like 10000 years before present...I2a could have been splitted during the last glacial maximum into I2a1 in Iberian refuge and I2a2 in Anatolian-Balkan-Black sea area.....

Actually last glacial maximum was 18,000 BP, the whole ice age ended about 12,000BC
Regardless, homo sapiens exist in Europe for about 30 thousand years, that means not all haplos came from Asia. Unless, as Taranis noticed, they all died or were killed.

 

[Taranis]

Corded ware and linear potery are both far from covering whole Europe... and exist in completely different times....
both are poorly sampled with few samples from each.... if you take 20 samples from 3 family graveyards in one mid size country of Europe now, does that give you good idea of distribution of haplogroups in Europe?

Given how today, Haplogroups R1a and R1b dominate Europe, it's statistically very likely that you should find them in ancient samples. The absence of R1b in both the Corded Ware and Linear Pottery Cultures makes it very likely that it just wasn't in Europe yet.

I would like more explanation why you think they are found in general context of J2... study some maps before making such firm far fetched conclusions...
also the common point for languages you put together seems to be that they are non-IE... what kind of overly simplified binary logic is that? it's like putting together grandmas and frogs cause they are not cherry trees...

I'm not sure if there is actually a point in further arguing with you because you evidently just delved off into randomly and pointlessly insulting me without an apparent reason. etrified:

In any case, apart from the fact that they are non-Indo-European and found in the general area, what should be obvious is the sheer diversity. But, let me elaborate this:

- Sumerian is the world's oldest attested language (it is also the language in which the Epic of Gilgamesh was originally written), written in the cuneiform script, beginning in approximately the 31st century BC (proto-cuneiforms are even earlier, but do not represent a proper written language yet). It is an agglutinative language. It probably was ceased to be spoken in the early 2nd millennium BC, but was continued as a liturgical language into Classical Antiquity.

- Elamite was spoken in the area of western Iran, and is attested from only a few centuries after the first attestion of Sumerian (also using cuneiform), and continued to be used until the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Some linguists argue there is a relationship between Elamite and the Dravidian language family.

- Akkadian is the world's oldest attested Semitic language (after Old Egyptian, also the second-oldest Afro-Asiatic language), attested from the 28th century BC onward, written in cuneiform.

- Hurrian was spoken in northern Mesopotamia around 23rd century BC to begin of 1st millennium BC. It was an agglutinative language, also written in cuneiform.

- Hattic was the language of the people who inhabited the same general area in Anatolia before the Hittites arrived in this area. Very little is known of the Hattic language, except that it also was a non-Indo-European language.

- Eteocretan is the as-of-yet-undeciphered (but certainly non-Indo-European) language written in the Linear A writing system of Crete. It is attested approximately 19th to 15th century BC.

- Urartian was spoken from the 9th through 6th century BC in the area of lake Van (eastern Anatolia / northern Mesopotamia). It was part of the same language family as Hurrian. This is obviously after the Hittites, but I wanted to mention them for completeness because of the relationship with Hurrian.

How can you even argue that this area was originally associated with Indo-Europeans (since you imply that J2 was associated with Indo-Europeans, which is found in this general area) if we look at the diversity of clearly non-Indo-European languages in this area which have general similar features (agglutinative character, with exception of Akkadian, which is a Semitic language), but do not seem to be related. By the time the Hittites show up in the NearEast, there already is a history of a millennium of written word, all in non-Indo-European languages.

Another issue is that if you look at the relationship of languages: in Antiquity, the Indo-Iranic branch of the Indo-European languages was found both in Eastern Europe / Central Asia (Scythians, Sarmatians) and in greater India. J2 isn't found in any appreciable amounts in Central Asia or Eastern Europe. Greek, in contrast is not part of the Indo-Iranic banch (and in turn is much closer to Italo-Celtic) despite J2 is common there. The only plausible explanation is that the high concentration of J2 in Greece is pre-Indo-European in origin.

J2 is far more likely to be associated with the (non-IE) Neolithic Farmers. One interesting point is that the bulk of these ancient (non-IE, non-Semitic) languages in the near east were agglutinative.

To get back to R1b, if you noticed, R1b-M269 is in turn dominated by the subclade R1b-P310. Almost all Western European R1b is part of the R1b-P310 subclade. This suggests a massive founder effect in Western Europe. The only archaeological culture which matches in pattern is the Bell-Beaker Culture. If we go from there, the association of R1b-U152 with Urnfield seems very plausible.

 

[how yes no 2]

Given how today, Haplogroups R1a and R1b dominate Europe, it's statistically very likely that you should find them in ancient samples. The absence of R1b in both the Corded Ware and Linear Pottery Cultures makes it very likely that it just wasn't in Europe yet.

what about taking 5 samples from south Europe and concluding there is no N or I1 in Europe, or taking 3 samples from Scandinavia and concluding that there is no I2a and E in Europe?

I'm not sure if there is actually a point in further arguing with you because you evidently just delved off into randomly and pointlessly insulting me without an apparent reason. etrified:

sorry, but if you are offended when it is said that an argument that you made seems to be based on oversimplified binary logic, than you should spend some time thinking about whether there is difference between people as personalities and the arguments they make...

I was clearly speaking of oversimplified binary logic of the argument you were making and not about you as a person... So, it is clearly not an insult...otherwise, I should be heavily insulted with your texts in which you typically twist my claim and than comment
"That makes no sense." or "genetics doesnot work that way" "You are arguing A LOT there which is very problematic to claim, let alone to back up. " "Occam's razor does not agree with you."
"Yeah, but your claims just go too far and are too far-fetched to be even remotely plausible, or stand up to closer scrutiny.""Because you're ignoring the basics of linguistics, again, not to mention time, lot's of it.""It's a "story", but not one that's consistent with facts.""Geez, you are hepelessly oversimplifying things there."

So, I see absolutely no reason that you complain after I have reprocicated your style of discussion.... point is you are making lot of claims as well.. I gave my reasoning for claims I made, but your reasoning is often missing behind your claims...

How can you even argue that this area was originally associated with Indo-Europeans (since you imply that J2 was associated with Indo-Europeans, which is found in this general area)

again you twist my claim...
if I said PIE was spread by haplogroup I and J2...that doesnot mean that all J2 spread it... I base my claim on spread of J2 in Sarasvati (Indus) river valley area that is associated with Aryans ...this is clearly about area roughly in Pakistan and not about non-IE areas such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon... besides study J2 spread before claiming link to all those languages you mention... I am not convinced that all those languages are related with J2... and all the listed languages are clearly not making single group...

if we look at the diversity of clearly non-Indo-European languages in this area which have general similar features (agglutinative character, with exception of Akkadian, which is a Semitic language), but do not seem to be related. By the time the Hittites show up in the NearEast, there already is a history of a millennium of written word, all in non-Indo-European languages.

and how is that a proof that J2 from area around Sarasvati river could not speak PIE language?

Another issue is that if you look at the relationship of languages: in Antiquity, the Indo-Iranic branch of the Indo-European languages was found both in Eastern Europe / Central Asia (Scythians, Sarmatians) and in greater India. J2 isn't found in any appreciable amounts in Central Asia or Eastern Europe. Greek, in contrast is not part of the Indo-Iranic banch (and in turn is much closer to Italo-Celtic) despite J2 is common there. The only plausible explanation is that the high concentration of J2 in Greece is pre-Indo-European in origin.

PIE was spread in India by Aryan people and they lived in area that exactly matches J2 spread around Sarasvati river...together with Brahmins having significant amount of J2 this is clear indication of J2 origin of Aryans...other candidate would be R1a1 but thing is Indian cluster of R1a1 is spread among all castes and is apart from European R1a1 cluster for more than 10000 years...

look at origin of Aryans, the Indus valley civilization... it is clear match with J2..

J2 is far more likely to be associated with the (non-IE) Neolithic Farmers. One interesting point is that the bulk of these ancient (non-IE, non-Semitic) languages in the near east were agglutinative.

intersting but has nothing to do with my claim...

To get back to R1b, if you noticed, R1b-M269 is in turn dominated by the subclade R1b-P310. Almost all Western European R1b is part of the R1b-P310 subclade. This suggests a massive founder effect in Western Europe. The only archaeological culture which matches in pattern is the Bell-Beaker Culture. If we go from there, the association of R1b-U152 with Urnfield seems very plausible.

that is fine...but what I tried to explain you above based on ybp estimations for variance is that R1b1b2 was already in Europe before that but not as a part of linear pottery and thus logically cannot be found in few samples from the linear pottery culture...

 

[how yes no 2]

The maternal mtDNA V is the only haplogroup considered to originate in Europe.

ok, but this discussion was about Y-DNA... I was explaining that haplogroup I didnot origin in Europe...though it perhaps did settle Europe before other haplogroups...

Actually last glacial maximum was 18,000 BP, the whole ice age ended about 12,000BC
Regardless, homo sapiens exist in Europe for about 30 thousand years, that means not all haplos came from Asia. Unless, as Taranis noticed, they all died or were killed.

whatever..
that dating still allows us to explain split between I2a1 and I2a2 as a consequence of spending ice age in different refuges (with I2a1 being in Iberian refuge)....which was the point I was making there...

 

[sparkey]

but that doesnot make haplogroup I originating in Europe as I*, I1*, and I2* are found in Anatolia and I* throughout middle east...

You keep making this claim but I really don't think it holds up. ISOGG says that I* is unobserved, and I believe that the links that you provide actually mean that all that was tested in terms of SNP's in those populations were enough to determine that they fall within I. The presence of I1* in Anatolia is uninteresting because I1* has a very young MRCA, so it doesn't indicate ancientness in the region. The I2* in Anatolia is exclusively I2*-B, which is also very young, even younger than I1*. See Nordtvedt and the I2* Project. Meanwhile, I2*-B's brother clusters, I2*-A, I2*-C, and I2*-ADR (soon to be I2c) don't stretch any farther east than Central Europe.

Small numbers of young, distantly related subclades outside of Europe indicate to me small numbers of haplogroup I people emigrating out of Europe at different times. But an obvious tree of subclades within Europe, all present in Europe, indicate to me ancientness of haplogroup I within Europe.

 

[LeBrok]

It's not whatever because I2a clad is estimated to be 8 to 5 thousand years old, and the ice was gone 10,000 BP, not mentioning glacial maximum 18,000BP. Even if estimates are faulty and I2a is older then check this map. It shows Maximum Ice reach and climatic zones. It actually shows that during ice age Europe was cut off from Middle East by desert in Anatolia. Looks like there were better conditions in south of Europe to survive than in Anatolia, unlike you were proposing.
I know life sucked back then in Europe, but regardless, the I had lots of room to roam and hunt. It's a decent refuge, 3 quarters of Europe.