Theory: I1 originally from Paloithic Cro magnon central Europe not Scandinavia

Speaking of thrace and redheads. Thracian-born Roman emperor Maximinus Thrax was an 8 foot tall redheaded giant. Compare the look of his profile to "the irish giant" and other super tall people. Interesting to me, but when we see multiple skeletons of 8 foot tall guys this gets waved away like it's well within the range of humans and not a big deal. Same with cranial volumes of 1800-2000 ml.

Sure, some people alive today are that tall or have that large of a brain but they are literally one in a billion. That's about how few people make it to 8 foot tall. They do the same thing on the other end all the time, too. So we find this pinhead population of "hominid" while normal human size brains are around and they claim it's a human ancestor even though a sub 800 ml NORMAL intelligence human skull is extremely rare. Sometimes I wonder, it's just like "whatever fits the most popular theory of the day and is still a significant discovery" is what wil be claimed every day, not simply report what the facts are which usually go against one or the other rule.

Also we were talking about peopling of americas.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/links-between-native-americans-and.html

So southern altaians and native americans share common ancestry. Meaning that yes, you can have a big shift in what the same haplogroup looks like, as these south altaians are basically caucasian while the northeast guys are what you are talking about, FH.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Alan Brook - The Jews of Khazaria (2006)
For example, Gardizi reported a legend of the origin of the Kyrgyz people wherein a Khazar nobleman named Bashqird befriended the 'Saqlabs' (Slavs) and called another group of people whom he led the 'Khirkhiz'. He added that it was said that the Saqlabs mixed with the Khirkhiz and that this explains the incidence of red hair and white skin among the Khirkhiz.


Slavs + Kyrgyz = Ginger
Who would have thought;

All those Turk folks with Caucasoid features actually did inter-mix with Caucasoids; whether Slavs, Scythians or Tocharians;
Or any other Indo-Europeans of the vicinity; Is this all Surprising - not really;
 
These same kind of estimates said that blue eyes developed 5k years ago and that red hair 10k years ago. now we know neanderthal had red hair, and light eyes. WHOOPS!

Meaning that Neanderthals admixture is how modern Europeans must have acquired red hair and light eyes? Aren't you the one who is always talking about natural selection producing the same result among parallel lineages? Besides, Neanderthals had variable pigmentation.

TMRCA means absolutely nothing. Even if the time estimate part is correct and you can trace common ancestor back to a particular time IT MEANS NOTHING. If you have a big expansion OR you have a bottleneck this can easily happen. So like the concept itself, it hinges on random distribution which we absolutely know doesn't exist. No bottlenecks, no giant expansions, no wars, no natural selection. Basically if there were no history and no biology then we could make assumptions like this.

It tells you the approximate date of when the clade began expanding. That will tell you the approximate time period of its initial expansion in a region, provided you've isolated possible pooling point effects. You know that abundance of I2-M26 we've found in ancient samples? Yeah, TMRCA calculations of I2-M26 predicted that, because it has the highest TMRCA of regional Haplogroup I clades.

Not sure if a recent TMRCA is due to a bottleneck or a founder effect during an expansion of a large existing population? Look at the most closely related clades. Nothing nearby = an expansion out of a bottleneck. Lots of things nearby in a fleshed out tree = expansion from within a larger existing population.

TMRCA calculation doesn't assume a lack of bottlenecks, expansions, or wars. We've already gone over this. Provided that its other assumptions are correct (including a lack of extreme natural selection bias on sampled markers), it should detect them.

Fire Haired said:
what evidence do u have that R1a has mixed more with hg I than R1b.
Because that's just factually the case.

Maybe it's "factually the case" for I2a-Din, a geographic outlier from the I2a family which had a large Eastern European expansion, but it's "factually the case" for few other Haplogroup I subclades I can think of. Maybe I1 and I2-M223, but even those have nice links with R1b-U106 in addition to R1a.

There's no real evidence of that, any more than there is hard evidence that the africans today originated there, and there's evidence I has been all over the place from north africa to gedrosia. It can't have originated where it is now, it goes under the ice periodically, it had to originate elsewhere. The only connect you could have is cro magnon skulls.

What's this "evidence I has been all over the place from north africa to gedrosia"? Every major Haplogroup I subclade has its greatest diversity in Europe. I definitely suspect that it was in Europe during the Ice Age. My best guess, subject to revision, is the Franco-Iberian refuge for I2a, the Adriatic refuge for I2b-ADR and I2c, and "probably one of those" for I1 (not enough deep tree data for that one right now). I don't see any subclades that I would place outside of Europe during the Ice Age.

Also, like I said, having the MRCA be young is a good sign it's actually on the way out. On the way in or the way out, but it's obvious which is more likely.
This applies double for I groups. Especially if it's true that they were the major inhabitants of europe until 5k years ago when IE came as everyone seems to think. The way they are spread around so thin all over makes it obvious if nothing else does.

Nope, a recent TMRCA does not indicate that anything is "on the way out." An "on the way out" marker would have low frequency but not necessarily low molecular diversity. Why would an old lineage "on the way out" suddenly look young? Besides, Haplogroup I isn't really "spread around so thin"; there are many places very high in Haplogroup I, like Scandinavia, Bosnia, Sardinia...

If, hypothetically, R1b is in the process of gradually overcoming Haplogroup I due to some selection pressure, we're likely to continue to have higher molecular diversity in Haplogroup I than in European R1b until it is very close to extinction. Even if there were only two I carriers left, with one being I1 and the other I2-M223, it would look more ancient than R1b in Europe.
 
All crap I heard before, I could care less. No that's not true, some new crap in there. All nonsense, though, wish I didn't bother.

I expected and probably deserved some attack for linking to what amounts to LEGENDS OF BIGFOOT. Of course I do think it probably says something, though is greatly exaggerated. But it's weird to me the pseudoscience crap gets all stops pulled out for this particular thread and no other.

May as well start to talk about punctuated equilibrium. Stephen Jay Gould is dead so someone's going to have to come up with some new "science" to show europeans are alien invaders.

Kevin Alan Brook - The Jews of Khazaria (2006)
For example, Gardizi reported a legend of the origin of the Kyrgyz people wherein a Khazar nobleman named Bashqird befriended the 'Saqlabs' (Slavs) and called another group of people whom he led the 'Khirkhiz'. He added that it was said that the Saqlabs mixed with the Khirkhiz and that this explains the incidence of red hair and white skin among the Khirkhiz.


Slavs + Kyrgyz = Ginger
Who would have thought;

All those Turk folks with Caucasoid features actually did inter-mix with Caucasoids; whether Slavs, Scythians or Tocharians;
Or any other Indo-Europeans of the vicinity; Is this all Surprising - not really;

I could argue a turk is a caucasoid. They seem to come from caucaus, how much more caucasoid can you be? It's mix with east that makes them look somewhat otherwise, just like it's mix with levant that gives the jews with J paternity their look.
 
I know it seems that things evolve but it still seems impossible. Natural selection seems really impossible maybe we just cant explain why things change. I am a redhead and alot of my relatives are on my dad's side it is the most popular hair color the red hair genes are extremely strong in my DNA. I am as much as a redhead as possible i know what it is like more than u. I don't endure cold any better than a black person my extremely pale skin does not give me an advantage at all. I dont see how i would survive better in ice age Europe than a black person would. The only negative thing is i get sun burned a little more easily than the average white person but there is nothing majorly differnt. Red hair goes very deep under the 45th parrel.
Funny a lot of "scientists" have tried to chalk things up as 100% "drift" as well. That's really the biggest tenant of original out of africa. Basically it doesn't make any sense, though. You have no reason for big changes to go in a particular direction. If you are in a neutral state stuff changes back and forth randomly, you don't become new stuff on a group basis.

If you were outside a lot you'd absorb a lot more vitamin D than most white people, and way more than most black people, in low sunlight kind of area. Which doesn't matter a lot today but used to.

It is easy to explain why red hair does not cover all of Italy and Spain as 1% or above. Because the celtic blood in Spain became less and less the more south they went and the dark hair genes dominate more than the light hair genes in Denmark which is why red hair from Germans survived better in Denmark than red hair from Celts in Spain. Same probably with italics and Celts in the alps and Italy. What about the decline of red hair as u get east of Germany why doesnt maciamo talk about that. The Sycthians and other Indo Iranians tribes lived in very sunny desert like areas of central Asia and they had high amounts of red hair but did fine from 4,000-1,500ybp till they were conquered by central Asian turkic tribes.
Which says that things happened as I was talking about. At end of ice age R group settled all of eurasia and went hog wild growing all over the place. However even though they have tons of r1a in India theya re all pretty dark skinned and haired. The idea is they have had some selection to not die in the immense sunlight of lower lattitudes. The red hair is being weeded out. A lot of this is just mixing in, but most of the scientists today treat everything like it's mixing a cake and that leads to some really dumb conclusions. Truth is for african americans they have taken on european genes very unequally, meaning that selection is happening. Probably mostly for disease resistance.


It is alot more complicated than what u say sure relatives to humans have lived in Europe for over a million years. But that does not mean they were humans ancestors only off shoots of the same family while humans ancestors could have stayed in africa that whole time. Our human family would have begun in sub shara africa 200,000-400,000ybp. Then the family it seems all non sub sharen africans come from migrated to north africa and the mid east over 100,000ybp. Then they split into Caucasins and Oceania mongliod or they came from separate migrations out of Africa. Oceania mongliod migrated to India then further into asia splitting into Mongliods and Oceania i dont know maybe 80,000ybp Oceania going south and Mongliods north. Caucasins stayed in the mid east and groups of Caucasians would have made it to Europe first over 55,000ybp. The founder population of all modern Europeans probably arrived from a mix of diff groups or one group anywhere from 30,000-60,000ybp.
So go back and read my post about african and european potential human ancestors. The heidelbergensis is an ancestor of everyone, no one seems to dispute that. The neanderthal is an ancestor probably of everyone but possibly just everyone but about 1% of africa. Recent evidence shows rhodiensis is only the ancestor of a similarly tiny portion of the human ancestry, it also shows all the supposed chimp-human missing links don't make any sense at all, and modern humans suddenlys how up at 160k years ago and not in sub saharan africa but right by the levant meaning they came from elsewhere. So everything being said about out of africa is actually completely backwards.

Because the missing part is obviously out there and probably related to peking man. To tie up where modern humans come from you have to have a large brained hominid with a chin. Which sounds a lot like peking man. In africa we don't have either of those things, the only thing close is rhodiensis but clearly modern humans exist at the same time as rhodiensis.

Yes some Neanderthals i think the ones they tested were from spain and they had very pale skin and red hair i think they were only 50,000 years old. Their red hair and pale skin came from a diff source than what mod Europeans have so that does not matter when arguing a older age for Europeans paleness. I also wnat to say we dont know who the neanderthals were. I have looked at so many of their skulls and so many from diff ages and regions look so diff. When u look at a Caucasian skull and the type African americans have so west African they look extremely similar u have to study it to see the difference.
Not really, they are quite distinct, and we have a pretty good record of them in europe at least. Their range will expand even more as russia and or soviet states do some archaeology.

Neanderthal skull has a big prefrontal area, unibrow, occiptal bun which no pure african has and few europeans have, and a forhead that slopes backwards. Also deep set eyes like many europeans. Critically the corner of eyes are set way back. Everything else we see is the opposite and in rhodiensis actually juts forward and to me looks very alien.

Black africans mostly have a pretty standard blend of east versus west features, in cameroon many of them have skulls pretty similar to cro magnon 1. Only a few in west africa seem to have something akin to heavy faces that is a bit similar to neanderthal. I don't think it comes from rhodiensis (I keep spelling it wrong but can't be bothered to care, sorry), because that doesn't look like anything in modern humans except maybe some of the odder looking people in the levant seem to have a slight amount of sharp edges around their eye sockets that just forward. I think they got it rather where they come from which is India, not africa. Andamese have those similar heavy faces and austronesians have it even more heavily, so I have little doubt that's what happened, unless we can find some new artifacts in africa to say otherwise.

Not everyone with a heavy face is a neanderthal, and not many black african people have that heavy a face. Those that do are similar to much different austronesian look.

The only times you see the term "negroid" used for old skulls is because it's when neanderthal had not been discovered yet. If you know what they look like it's hard to mistake.

Even though their ancestors have been split for probably around 150,000-250,000 years. But if neanderthal skulls looked so obviously diff they probably were very unrelated compared to all modern humans today. I think the so called Neanderthal is just random some what related breds that might have come in multiple migrations. So when they have that DNA from Neanderthals and say they can tell u how much DNA u have from them if that is liget they are only talking about some Neanderthals.
Maybe what happened is just like the indian r1as!

The largest group of immigrants absorbed the smaller group of neanderthal. Over time the y-dna of neanderthal trickled out OR SO WE ASSUME AFTER SAMPLING ONE IN A THOUSAND INDIVIDUALS FROM A CONVENIENCE SAMPLE!

Note this convenience sample is also mostly people who don't know their ancestry, ie people who are either of uncertain parentage or have immigrated recently. So that's a pretty terrible sample to look for the oldest inhabitants in.

So the r1a kept their y-dna but they look very similar to the other people in india.

Just like some of the altaics with the same y-dna look exactly the same as the populations around them.

And just like happened with Q haplogroup.

They have soaked up a lot of genes around them but kept the same y-dna.

U dont get what i am saying the first hg R people were Mongliods they were not apart of the Caucasin bloodline they were in the Mongliod bloodline. 50,000ybp Europeans ancestors most likely had tannish skin they are still in the European bloodline.
Yeah, obviously but why can't it go the other way? We know it can't go your way because red hair is recessive so it couldn't just change like that. It would have to be a foudner effect from an older population. Like I said, going back to pre ice age or even a couple ice ages ago then spreading out. This doesn't happen over night.

Yes they are sure they have many tribes but they all go back to the first Chinese speakers. There where many Germanic tribes but they were still all German. Han chinese and some othe group of Chinese dont come from completly diff sources they come from the orignal Chinese source. Maybe not completely geneticalley but defintley in language.
The germans all had a different language. Every little city in germany had its own language. There's no one single german ethnicity, no single chinese ethnicity, not now not then, there just isn't and wasn't.

No it does not. 4,000ybp is not that long ago epxlain how almost all tarium mummies had mongliod mtdna haplogroups. There were mongliods everywhere but for some reason refused to go to the tarium basin after living in east asia for over 40,000 years does that make any sense. Khazars were not red haired and blue eyes sure some Indo iranian tribes 2,000-4,000ybp who did not inter marry did have around 3-15% red hair but Khazars did not. Y dna Q is not popular any where in asia except central siberera get ur facts together at least try to check stuff in Wikipedia before throwing out lie's. The European light features in central asia all come form Indo Iranian migrations starting 5,000ybp. Unified Indo Iranian tribes who kept their European blood seem to have all been killed off in the early mid ages that is why they dont exist they were very famous and we have alot of their ancient DNA but they were not the only iron and bronze age central Asians. I do think that east Asian like all Turkic speakers are very recent in central asia but i may be wrong.
Popularity is nothing to do with it :lol:

Khazars are not in ukrain any more, they don't really exist any more except as part of east europe and part of (some) ashkenazi jews. And yes they did have red hair and blue eyes and have Q haplotype. They tested the royal burial mounds.

I dont believe red hair evolved out of Mongliod that is crazy talk. red hair in central asia from what we know is only from Indo Iranians that started migrating there at the earliest 5,000ybp.
Drift isn't really evolution. Say a white guy marries a black girl 1/10 times. So over time all the features darken up a bit but probably most of his ancestors still have european y-dna and mtdna. That's just exactly how it is in india. The south asians are obviously very related to blacks from africa and andamese look vert similar.

U are making up consipircy theorys with no evidence to put down mongliod people to make them feel recent. I get sick of that when it is done on whites. did u read when i mentioned 42,000 year old mtdna sample near bejing with specifcalley mongliod B4'5 and aust dna proving it was in the mongliod family. Mongoloids are from what i can see the first and only settlers of places like Korea and probably Japan.
Nobody is less recent, but they didn't have all the same features. And the east asian population expansion is a very real phenomenon and huge.

Have u even looked up when Eskeoms came. from what i have looked up on google the Eskemo Aluet language is probably 4,000 years old. I am sorry i cant find the link but i looked at this genetic stuff about native americans and eskemo inuit people. Native Americans ancestors when looking at mtdna and y dna haplogroups most likely arrived over 20,00ybp eskemo inuit ancestors 6,000-10,000ybp. When u look at the globe13 aust da groups of mongliod's artic which represents easta sian looking people in north america is closest to native american not east asian. Originally native Americans ancestors may have looked east asian.
Well peruvians look nothing like asians so....

There's also chance that some siberians came from america, the other way around. Language age doesn't mean anything, but the language is related to basque if that tells you anything.

The only heavily hg Q people i can think of is native americans and east asian looking native people of america and central siberns. There is no doubt the first hg Q people would have been Mongliod looking. ANtive Americans count as Mongliod looking they have the highcheck bons and many other of the same features There is a native american center by my house some full bloded native americans go to my school and most have slanted eyes when i first saw them i thought they were like dark skinned east asians.

Like i have been saying the red hair that existed and kind of still exists in central asia is from R1a1a1b2 Z93 Indo Iranian migrations out of Russia starting at the earliest 5,000ybp. What evidence do u have with y dna Q being connected with red hair. I dont know how true those native american stories are and who knows how popular they were. There are probably many similar storys that sound like people are talking about aliens or something. Native Americans ancestors spread acrros north and south america from 25,000-10,000ybp. So those stories would have to very very old if those red haired people were there before them i doubt they could keep the same story for that long. Also there is no such thing as a red haired people red hair at the highest gets up to 15-20% in some Insular Celts of Ireland and Britain and the Uralic speaking Udmurts of Volga Russia.

I told you already. DNA tests plus physical descriptions plus living descendants. What more do you need?

Obviously huge migrations did happen when huns came and tamerlane and ghengis khan etc. and they have greatly mongolized a big portion of the planet, that's just a fact.
 
To clarify one bit, most europeans have some neanderthal features. Some have a LOT of them. Black africans have ZERO features of rhodiensis which would supposedly be what modern humans evolve from. Black africans with heavy faces don't really have features like the modern humans who show up in NE corner of africa 160k years ago either, but look more like some austronesians who in turn look like some of the fossils in china. Only people who have any features REMOTELY like rhodiensiensis are a few in the levant here and there with much narrower but still protruding eye sockets, but barely any.

So the archaeology (and now dna) says modern looking humans came out of asia, including black africans. They mixed heavily with the natves but neanderthal also makes up a decent amount of euro dna. South african hominids survie only in a bit of west africa and levant.

This kind of east to west push with occasional back migrations has been going on in all recorded history and that's where the main population is. It also fits with all archaeology and dna evidence. So maybe that's the way it's been since the beginning.
 
Of course he doesnt;
Its 1000-700 BC; his own source even states 3000 years ago
"This was apparently a Bronze Age (3000 years ago) family burial site"
and he calculates 2000 BC - a classical Noman;

Göttingen University (2006) - p.12
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf
also clearly states 1000-700 BC - Urnfield Bronze-age [Unstrut-Gruppe]

---

Im not too sure about that (maybe Sparkey knows more) but from what i have read so far the I1 app. turned into I2b2(L38)
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2008-05/1211058850

Def. needs to be double-checked;

I said it was about 2000bc because I barely glanced at it originally and was not looking at it as someone asked about it. That's because I am not really trying to prove there's I1 in europe which hopefully nobody disagrees with.

But thanks for making my case for me, if there's no I1 showing up in ancient studies then ffs we obviously haven't done enough studies to make any kind of conclusion. All 4 of them put together don't say a heck of a lot, but it's taken as proof positive in here that the entirety of north africa and west europe got wholly populated by r1b race from iran in pre roman iron age. Even though we have zero indo european language input in iberia and north africa aside from italic and still have some non IE language surviving.
 
Last edited:
Hands down, I1 threads have the most pound for pound entertainment value vs. the other paternal groups. Of course I'm bias... but c'mon folks. Where else do you get talk of giants, gingers, 20,000 year old trans-Atlantic voyages, etc. etc. Must be genetic.
 
Hands down, I1 threads have the most pound for pound entertainment value vs. the other paternal groups. Of course I'm bias... but c'mon folks. Where else do you get talk of giants, gingers, 20,000 year old trans-Atlantic voyages, etc. etc. Must be genetic.

There is no way those stories of giant people with red hair from native Americans is connected with Caucasian X2 that arrived in north america estimates at 15,000-20,000ybp. I think it could have come from Europe but where is the ancestral form of the Native American X2 or the same subclades. the other way it would have come is mid east to Siberia to America but there was not evidence Native American X2 was from Siberia or that X2 existed in Siberia at that time but the Druze are the only other people who have X2a. I still think it was mid east to siberia to america.

What does hg I1 have anything to do with that. But Eric the red was the first European person we know of who discovered north America and he had red hair and probably hg I1. But would have got his red hair from is Germanic Italo Celtic ancestry so R1b1a2a1a L11 people who inter married with hg I1. and before that the red hair is from some random non Indo European people around Russia and Ukraine who did not have hg I1 or R1b maybe the best way to trace it is mtDNA. But Europeans and mid easterns have so many of the same basic haplogroups u would have to go really deep in subclades.
 
You are very literal, F.H. The odd circumstances concerning maternal X in the America's is this population's epicenter is located in what is modern day New York state (and slightly north into the neighboring border of Canada). There is no trail of X leading from Siberia to Alaska or anywhere near the Pacific side. That is an enormous problem with the traditional trans-Siberian models. All of the topics mentioned in my comment happen to be addressed in an I1 thread, I'm not saying I1 was Solutreans...
 
Last edited:
Is there any sign of a source from Europe no. So that is why i think it is a mystery. Europe would make sense since it is northeastern North America but would it really be possible and why wouldnt they spread the more dominte mtDNA U(mainly U5) and H(mainly H1 and H3). Its confusing i think Siberia would make the most sense a migration from Europe it would have to be a small group with almost only X2 including X2a which has been found in Israeli Jews but not Europe or Siberia..
 
Is there any sign of a source from Europe no. So that is why i think it is a mystery. Europe would make sense since it is northeastern North America but would it really be possible and why wouldnt they spread the more dominte mtDNA U(mainly U5) and H(mainly H1 and H3). Its confusing i think Siberia would make the most sense a migration from Europe it would have to be a small group with almost only X2 including X2a which has been found in Israeli Jews but not Europe or Siberia..
Not to split hairs, F.H... but the branch of Old World X2 is found in the DRUZE not the Jews. The Druze have an amazing collection of various strands of paternal and maternal haplogroups. Of course they should be studied further because members of this Middle Eastern religious tradition have quite a story to tell. I don't know why maternal H or U didn't make it over to the Americas... but they didn't. The Atlantic route isn't that wild of an idea when considering the Ice Age conditions (ice bergs/seals/walrus/frozen fresh water) and hg. I's (that's paternal I) seemingly hard-wired drive for boat travel.
 
Not to split hairs, F.H... but the branch of Old World X2 is found in the DRUZE not the Jews. The Druze have an amazing collection of various strands of paternal and maternal haplogroups. Of course they should be furthered studied because this members of this Middle Eastern religious tradition have quite a story to tell. I don't know why maternal H or U didn't make it over to the Americas... but they didn't. The Atlantic route isn't that wild of an idea when considering the Ice Age conditions (ice bergs/seals/walrus/frozen fresh water) and hg. I's (that's paternal I) seemingly hard-wired drive for boat travel.

I defintley think Europe is a possible source but i dont think the evidence is overwhelming. U know there is no way genetically hg I is hardwired for boat travel anymore than hg C is but i defintley think it is possible. If they find a Native American branch of Y DNA F, C V20, or I i think groups of Europeans did come around that time or before that would prove it.
 
Oh, F.H. I forgot to mention something else. Spend a few minutes watching some videos of folks actually travelling over the Atlantic in row boats. Yes row boats. I had no idea so many people have and are planning to do this nutty feat. And most make it unassisted. Now if we sprinkle the ocean with a smattering of ice sheets allowing for Hgar to periodically fill his grocery bag with fresh seal meat and his "old school" animal hide canteens with melt water-- all of the sudden we have a clear picture of Solutrean's successful journey.
 
Attention moderators... why are my posts not featured in the "latest posts" category? All of F.H. recent responses have been listed but none of mine have. What's up with that?
 
mtdna X2 is most prevalent in rare middle eastern communities, upon exiting Africa and then the Middle East, these females penetrated deep into Asia ending up in extreme northeastern Siberiawhere they crossed the Bering straight into the America's, they are only present in northern America, in Iroquois and Algonquin female lineages (north American Amerindians.)
 
There is a 25-30% high across much of the eastern portion of northern America spanning New York State and other nearby regions.
 
...these females penetrated deep into Asia ending up in extreme northeastern Siberiawhere they crossed the Bering straight into the America's...
Can you site your sources for this claim? I know maternal X has a spike in Georgia (I would hardly call that extreme northeastern Siberia) and I remember reading about/seeing another much smaller echo spike that penetrated more deeply into Russia, but it wasn't any further East than Tomsk. P.S. Moderators I'm back on the lastest postings highlights, so thanks for fixing that...
 
my bets: Y-I1 is maybe a not too old SNP but born by an upstream that were present in North central Europe long time ago yet BUT in small numbers - uneasy to say how it took some demic increase - it was surely present in Scandinavia before any other HG (look at Saami, at this time proto-Saami) , came from the continent - subclades occuped south Baltic coasts, and Finland, this last not by force through Scandinavia - a first erratic dispersal - in Scandinavia we can imagine the SNPs knew a first demic increase with agriculture in some place not everyplace because the osmose took time, we know that (no mixing at first) -
at pre-bronze it seems 'corded' affiliated people took foot in Scandinavia, almost sure with a proto- or complete satem language, and came far northwards unti Lappony (Saamy lad) - it seems they ware pushed northward by new arrivants in true Bronze Age, into Norway where R1a is very denser than in sweden and Denmark, even in Norway the distribution is denser in northern parts - I believe these new people were proto-germanic ones (some proto-celtic ones more in Western Norway, through sea and N-Jutland, at iron Ages???) and that they created a cultural region centered around Denmark by osmose, where Y-R1a (fewer), Y-R1b-U106 (a lot) AND OTHER SNPs of Y-I1 (a lot too) stayed in N-Germany-Denmark were involved (plus some Y-I2a2) -
so Y-I1 saw different subclades of itself introduced in Scandinavia at different times under different cultural labels... but yes I agree, it was first on the continent (very evident)
 
I said that but I say again, Y-I1 seems (for the most, not for all) a newer newcomer in Scandinavia than does Y-R1a !!!)
 

This thread has been viewed 134305 times.

Back
Top