J1 and Northern Italy (Tuscany)

[Semitic Duwa]

I see. My fault. I wasn't aware that you (and Forum Biodiversity) are the world wide authority on J1 and ISOGG are pikers in comparison. You certainly have a healthy sense of self esteem, Semitic Duwa.

Indeed, compared to ISOGG, I am an expert on J1. And the worst part is that I'm not even exaggerating, all you need to do in order to realise this is to have a good look at ISOGG's J1 tree and try to find 3 of the subclades I spoke of in the aforementioned thread... Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it!

Perhaps you would care to point me to the post where I stated that J1 was a major Neolithic player? Isn't that a bit of a straw man argument? (I am also quite aware of what yDna has been found in a Neolithic context in Europe. We do manage in our humble way here to keep up with the relevant papers. There are threads for all of those papers.)

I think you're missing the point quite frankly, let me put it this way: I1, R1b, E-V13, C1a2 and T-M70 have far better odds of being Neolithic markers than either J1 or J2, neither of which were found in a Neolithic context.

There you go again. Certainly I've never thought or posted any such thing. Perhaps you could point me to a place here where it has been said that J1 was the driver of the spread of Neolithic farmers from the Near East?

I'm not singling you out in particular, my initial post merely highlighted the fact that many are eager to invoke Neolithic dispersals in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe.... Despite the fact that J1 hasn't even been found in ancient remains to date, let alone Neolithic remains.
Yet again, I fail to see what's so controversial about this, some J1 subclades might've been minor Neolithic markers at some point... Or not, it's better to keep an open mind in the absence of archeogenetic data.

Sorry, wasn't that what I've been saying not only in this thread but in others? The whole point has been that research on J1 has lagged and that as a result we don't have subclade resolution for the J1 in Italy or anywhere else in Europe.

Apparently not, especially considering all the talk about "Neolithic J1" in this thread. Also, if you'd taken the time to read the thread I directed you to you'd notice that we've made tremendous progress as far as research on J1 is of concern, I can confidently say that J1's phylogeny is far more complete than J2 and E-M35.1's phylogenies put together. While some regions (such as, say, East Africa and Soqotra) deserve serious scrutiny, Italy certainly isn't one of them (again, in the thread I directed you to I mention the Caprio cluster, so Italian J1 is anything but understudied).

Great. So precisely how does that conflict with what I've been saying? How do we know how much of that is in Italy, even if you're correct?

I'd say a sizeable chunk of Italian J1 is YSC234+, the Caprio cluster for instance belongs to a branch of YSC234 (FGC4745), the branch which led to my marker (ZS241) was found in a singleton sample in Italy, L829 (another YSC234>L858 subclade) is found in Italy and Malta and so on... So there's that.
That's not to say YSC234- folks don't exist in Italy, what I am saying though is that they probably came during the Bronze Age (much like J2), the Neolithic (even Late Neolithic) doesn't sound very plausible at this point.

Well, if you agree with it I must be right.

You'd be amazed

I must say that I have the strange feeling I get when someone is facing me and addressing me but is actually directing his comments to someone else over my shoulder. If you have a disagreement with the opinion of a particular poster, perhaps it would be best if you address that specific poster. Also, it's not helpful to exaggerate people's opinions to the point of absurdity...to wit, to say that some branches of J1 in Europe may be older than the Bronze Age or the Iron Age or the modern age for that matter, or that it is not all Semitic is not to say that J1 was a major Neolithic lineage, or the driver of the Neolithic or that some, perhaps a lot of the J1 might not turn out to be "Semitic".

As I said, I'm not singling you out in particular, I'm merely pointing out that all the talk about Neolithic dispersals is kind of unwarranted as far as J1 goes, especially considering the complete absence of J1 in ancient remains to date. This tendency to bring up the Neolithic in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe is quite mind-boggling, it's as if some people have been living in a cave recently and missed all of the Neolithic results we've uncovered.
J1 is about the same age as R1b and every bit as diverse, one should be careful not to make easy shortcuts such as "Non-Semitic J1 = Neolithic".
Yet again, everything we say is an educated guess at this point.

As for the forum "drama", I apologize if I associated you incorrectly with The Apricity, although I have to be honest and say I don't find forum biodiversity much better...more lip service to the papers, but very unbalanced and biased interpretations by many of the posters, in my opinion, which could hardly be otherwise given the stated opinions of the site owner and many of the posters. I understand it's been cleaned up lately (those crashes have proved very fortuitous, have they not?), but people have sent me hair raising screen shots of comments on there, particularly in the past. Have those leopards really changed their spots? I doubt it. However, I don't have enough exposure to it to indite all the posters, and I don't actually recall your posts there so none of this is personal.

Also, I was actually going by the fact that when I raised the issue that a member of The Apricity was "trawling" for 23andme data on Sicilians and southern Italians for use in his infamous threads about these people (totally misinterpreting them, in my opinon) and how they are really Middle Easterners in disguise and not Europeans, I thought it was you who came to his defense. I assumed it was because you were from The Apricity. Again, I apologize if that wasn't the case. I can't go back and check now because 23andme apparently agreed with me, and proceeded to pull the thread. I understand he still posts hundreds of pictures of people at discotheques in southern Italy at forum biodiversity however, yes? Very scientific indeed.

I think you're referring to a user called "tauromenion", either way I'm not that familiar with him in the first place. As far as ABF goes, it's far more intellectual-leaning than The Apricity, no doubt about it... You might not like Elias, but I for one am glad to count him as one of my friends (and obviously, we don't agree on everything, and that's just fine) and I can only praise him for weeding out most of the "trawls" on ABF despite the fact that I don't post that much back there anymore.

 

[Sile]

ISOGG is even more unreliable than Eupedia as far as J1 goes, it still refers to L147.1 as a major SNP for instance (while we know it's unstable). As I said, if you want a more or less up-to-date assessment of J1's phylogeography you should read this thread (which, I can assure you, is quite unbiased).

How do I know that earlier J1 branches didn't take part in the Neolithic revolution? Truth be told, I know that absence of evidence doesn't stand for evidence of absence but arguing that J1 (or indeed, J as a whole) was some sort of major Neolithic marker is sheer madness at this point given the fact that we've managed to uncover haplogroups such as I1 (from Hungary; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014), R1b (from the cave site of Els Trocs; Haak et al. 2015), E-V13 (from the Avellaner cave; Lacan et al. 2011), C1a2 (from Hungary; Gamba et al. 2014) and T-M70 (from Germany; Haak et al. 2015) in a Neolithic context.
Contrast this with the deafening absence of J1 in all Neolithic remains to date and it becomes pretty clear that invoking the Neolithic revolution in order to explain J1's presence in Europe is nothing short of a self-defeating endeavour.

Agree, but all this says is that J was not found in Europe in Neolithic times , while the others you mentioned where. We can still say J was neolithic but further away from Anatolia or southern-caucasus lands and so played no part in the early European Neolithic migration

 

[Angela]

Indeed, compared to ISOGG, I am an expert on J1. And the worst part is that I'm not even exaggerating, all you need to do in order to realise this is to have a good look at ISOGG's J1 tree and try to find 3 of the subclades I spoke of in the aforementioned thread... Good luck, because you're gonna need loads of it!

I think you're missing the point quite frankly, let me put it this way: I1, R1b, E-V13, C1a2 and T-M70 have far better odds of being Neolithic markers than either J1 or J2, neither of which were found in a Neolithic context.

I'm not singling you out in particular, my initial post merely highlighted the fact that many are eager to invoke Neolithic dispersals in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe.... Despite the fact that J1 hasn't even been found in ancient remains to date, let alone Neolithic remains.
Yet again, I fail to see what's so controversial about this, some J1 subclades might've been minor Neolithic markers at some point... Or not, it's better to keep an open mind in the absence of archeogenetic data.

Apparently not, especially considering all the talk about "Neolithic J1" in this thread. Also, if you'd taken the time to read the thread I directed you to you'd notice that we've made tremendous progress as far as research on J1 is of concern, I can confidently say that J1's phylogeny is far more complete than J2 and E-M35.1's phylogenies put together. While some regions (such as, say, East Africa and Soqotra) deserve serious scrutiny, Italy certainly isn't one of them (again, in the thread I directed you to I mention the Caprio cluster, so Italian J1 is anything but understudied).

I'd say a sizeable chunk of Italian J1 is YSC234+, the Caprio cluster for instance belongs to a branch of YSC234 (FGC4745), the branch which led to my marker (ZS241) was found in a singleton sample in Italy, L829 (another YSC234>L858 subclade) is found in Italy and Malta and so on... So there's that.
That's not to say YSC234- folks don't exist in Italy, what I am saying though is that they probably came during the Bronze Age (much like J2), the Neolithic (even Late Neolithic) doesn't sound very plausible at this point.

You'd be amazed

As I said, I'm not singling you out in particular, I'm merely pointing out that all the talk about Neolithic dispersals is kind of unwarranted as far as J1 goes, especially considering the complete absence of J1 in ancient remains to date. This tendency to bring up the Neolithic in order to explain J1's distribution in Europe is quite mind-boggling, it's as if some people have been living in a cave recently and missed all of the Neolithic results we've uncovered.
J1 is about the same age as R1b and every bit as diverse, one should be careful not to make easy shortcuts such as "Non-Semitic J1 = Neolithic".
Yet again, everything we say is an educated guess at this point.

I think you're referring to a user called "tauromenion", either way I'm not that familiar with him in the first place. As far as ABF goes, it's far more intellectual-leaning than The Apricity, no doubt about it... You might not like Elias, but I for one am glad to count him as one of my friends (and obviously, we don't agree on everything, and that's just fine) and I can only praise him for weeding out most of the "trawls" on ABF despite the fact that I don't post that much back there anymore.

@Semitic Duwa,

All of that verbiage, and the result is that you can't point to anyone who claimed what you said they claimed, to wit that J1 was a major Neolithic lineage or a driver of the Neolithic, and certainly not me. So, they're all straw man arguments. In fact, many of the things you do claim about J1 were said by other posters, including me, and on this very thread.

All the obfuscation in the world and all the self praise in the world doesn't change any of that a jot.

If you think that something that Rossi, for example, or Maciamo, for that matter, has stated, is incorrect, then address them and their opinions, and do not attribute those opinions to all the posters on this thread. Even in that case, don't misrepresent those opinions or exaggerate them to a level of absurdity. It's not an honest debate tactic.

The poster of that pulled thread on 23andme goes by many names. He has even posted here in the past. I was speaking about the member who came to his defense, as you very well know, and to the best of my recollection it was you. Apologies if it wasn't the case.

As for the owner of forum biodiversity I don't know him from a hole in the wall, nor do I care to...it's the statements and attitudes that were displayed on there at least in the past and the slanted interpretations of data to which I object. I find it highly disingenuous that now everyone wants to pretend it didn't go on. Thank God for screen savers.

Regardless, enough gossip. In this field as well as in all others, people need to consider the source.

As for this Board, in the future please do not present straw man arguments, or misrepresent people's opinions.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

Agree, but all this says is that J was not found in Europe in Neolithic times , while the others you mentioned where. We can still say J was neolithic but further away from Anatolia or southern-caucasus lands and so played no part in the early European Neolithic migration

^^ Now that sounds far more reasonable, no doubt about this. That's a possibility we must seriously entertain, in fact J1 could possibly be involved in the Neolithisation of Central Asia (I wouldn't be surprised if we were to find J1 in BMAC for instance).

 

[Sile]

^^ Now that sounds far more reasonable, no doubt about this. That's a possibility we must seriously entertain, in fact J1 could possibly be involved in the Neolithisation of Central Asia (I wouldn't be surprised if we were to find J1 in BMAC for instance).

I doubt it has anything to do with early BMAC areas......i leave that to the R1, T, L, G etc ............while I associate J1 with a "persian gulf area" . The persian gulf before it became a salt water sea area was mainly fresh water marshy river lands ideal for people to live by ..............some scholars claim it to be the "original garden of eden " where 4 rivers met ( modern basra ) before flowing south into the Indian ocean

 

[Semitic Duwa]

All the obfuscation in the world and all the self praise in the world doesn't change any of that a jot.

This has more to do with sheer objectivity and factual accuracy rather than "self praise"... But since it seems you need a couple of pictures to understand what I'm saying, I'm going to do just that...

ISOGG:

& Eupedia:

VS Semitic Duwa (based on FTDNA's haplotree):

^^ Do you notice the discrepancy? Or are you just going to claim this is irrelevant because I posted this on ABF or because I allegedly have a "healthy sense of self-esteem"? Let's drop the ad hominems and stick to facts, that's all I can say.

If you think that something that Rossi, for example, or Maciamo, for that matter, has stated, is incorrect, then address them and their opinions, and do not attribute those opinions to all the posters on this thread. Even in that case, don't misrepresent those opinions or exaggerate them to a level of absurdity. It's not an honest debate tactic.

Fine then, you ask for it you get it: Maciamo states (in his J1 page) that J1-L136 "migrated south from eastern Anatolia" and that "all surviving J1 lineages share the same origin as goat and sheep herders from the Taurus and Zagros mountains". This is a broad assumption which is based almost entirely on contemporary data (and by now everyone ought to know how reliable contemporary data is), it fails to take J1's diversity into account and reduces it to a lineage which spread mostly during the Neolithic.
For instance, Maciamo states that "hotspots of J1 in northern Spain [...] appears to be lineages essentially descended from these Southwest Asian Neolithic Herders", needless to say that's a very tabloid-like statement.

As for this Board, in the future please do not present straw man arguments, or misrepresent people's opinions.

I'm here to talk about J1, not debate tactics. Again, I have nothing against you or anyone here in particular, I just find it mind-boggling that the Neolithic gets so much credit when J1 hasn't even been found in Neolithic remains to date.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

All this talking about Bronze Age invasions is funny.

I only know that Bronze Age samples from Kyjatice, Slovakia, turned out to be J2a1, in Gamba et al. And that's not so far from the Baltic sea.

Surely J2 in Southern Europe must have been much much older than that.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

All this talking about Bronze Age invasions is funny.

I only know that Bronze Age samples from Kyjatice, Slovakia, turned out to be J2a1, in Gamba et al. And that's not so far from the Baltic sea.

Surely J2 in Southern Europe must have been much much older than that.

Too early to tell, nevertheless judging from all the Neolithic remains to date J2 being older than the Bronze Age in Europe doesn't sound all that likely anymore.

 

[giuseppe rossi]

J2 was already present near the Baltic Sea in the Bronze Age, which means that J2 arrived in Italy or Greece at least 2000 years before that, so in the Copper Age/Late Neolitich.

I don't care how much you try to spin it, that's that.

 

[Angela]

J2 was already present near the Baltic Sea in the Bronze Age, which means that J2 arrived in Italy or Greece at least 2000 years before that, so in the Copper Age/Late Neolitich.

I don't care how much you try to spin it, that's that.

The Baltic Sea? Is that supposed to be funny? Even were that true, your conclusion wouldn't necessarily follow logically from that.

We don't know when J2 arrived in Italy or Greece. The dating in Boattini et al says Bronze Age. Even if you're not a fan of the dating methods, and I have some skepticism as well, just in terms of relative date of arrival, it came after R1b, so certainly not early or even middle Neolithic.

The earliest J2 we've found was in a Bronze Age "Indo-European" context.

Speaking of context, for those who don't know (and I wish I were still of your number), many of these arguments are about nordicists of various, often bizarre origins for the adoption of such a credo using the presence of J2 (and the E clades as well) to brand us as less European than themselves, joined by Middle Easterners who are bound and determined to claim us all for themselves, and Italians of the anthrofora world therefore determined to prove that J2 was already safely in Italy by the Neolithic. Sort of like the type of Spaniards who will grudgingly accept that they have yDna E and J (and North African), so long as it was all there by the Neolithic and had nothing to do with the dastardly Moors.

Of course, R1b/R1a is Central Asian, and N is Siberian, while I is probably Gravettian from West Asia. So where are we?

Wait, there's push back there too. From the usual suspects R1a, at least, is "East European" and if we have to admit it didn't drop out of the sky into Eastern Europe, it's absolutely clear that it's been completely north of the Near East for 30,000 some years, and N isn't Siberian. Can't have any connections with the Near East or Asia, and God forbid anyone mentions the word SSA.

Welcome to the wonderful world of amateur population genetics.

Edit 2: Apparently, now a paper claims N is "Chinese" in origin.

Ed. This is the link to the thread where Boattini et al is discussed, including the J2 lineages. It is difficult to find through the search engine because the thread title doesn't mention J2a or Boattini:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29842-southern-Italian-paper-2014?highlight=Boattini

 

[giuseppe rossi]

Well this is according to Boattini et al. 2013

"The use of STR variation for dating Y-chromosome lineages or population splits, is a controversial issue, due to the effect that both mutation rates and STR choice has on the temporal scale of age estimates. Following the most recent studies our estimates are based on those STRs that show the highest duration of linearity [49] and by using locus-specific mutation rates (Ballantyne et al. 2010). This is one of the reasons that led us to exclude ‘evolutionary’ mutation rates (see Methods for details). In addition, we removed ‘outlier’ haplotypes (seeMethods S1), since their presence could inflate significantly the ages of haplogroups and DAPC clusters. However, these results have to be taken with great caution, keeping in mind that ‘evolutionary’ rates (applied to the same data) would yield time estimates around three times greater. Nonetheless, we observe that two independent methods applied to our data – BATWING and SD-based estimates – yield consistent results. In fact, in contrast to mtDNA age estimates, almost all Y-chromosome estimates fall between late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. "

Some datings of Y-dna lineages from the same paper:

R-312: 7564 years before present.

I-M26: 5153

G-P15: 15020

E-V13: 3662

So R1b 312 is a Mesolitich haplogroup, while G2a is almost 2 times older.

I dunno how you can take this astrology seriously. I simply can't.

 

[Angela]

Well this is according to Boattini et al. 2013

"The use of STR variation for dating Y-chromosome lineages or population splits, is a controversial issue, due to the effect that both mutation rates and STR choice has on the temporal scale of age estimates. Following the most recent studies our estimates are based on those STRs that show the highest duration of linearity [49] and by using locus-specific mutation rates (Ballantyne et al. 2010). This is one of the reasons that led us to exclude ‘evolutionary’ mutation rates (see Methods for details). In addition, we removed ‘outlier’ haplotypes (seeMethods S1), since their presence could inflate significantly the ages of haplogroups and DAPC clusters. However, these results have to be taken with great caution, keeping in mind that ‘evolutionary’ rates (applied to the same data) would yield time estimates around three times greater. Nonetheless, we observe that two independent methods applied to our data – BATWING and SD-based estimates – yield consistent results. In fact, in contrast to mtDNA age estimates, almost all Y-chromosome estimates fall between late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. "

Some datings of Y-dna lineages from the same paper:

R-312: 7564 years before present.

I-M26: 5153

G-P15: 15020

E-V13: 3662

So R1b 312 is a Mesolitich haplogroup, while G2a is almost 2 times older.

I dunno how you can take this astrology seriously. I simply can't.

Giuseppe, didn't I say that I was somewhat skeptical of their dating? My point was mainly based, as I said, on the relative "order" for the appearance of these lineages in Italy, and the fact that we haven't yet found J2 anywhere any earlier than the Bronze Age.

Would I be shocked if some late Neolithic J2 shows up in the Balkan samples they are currently testing? Maybe in Cucuteni? Absolutely not.
Who knows what we'll see if they ever get around to finding y Dna or autosomal dna in the Balkans or Italian mesolithic or even Neolithic.
Many of these researchers are mainly interested in northern or central Europe, although to be fair the samples are better preserved in colder climates, so it may be that further advancements in technique are necessary to extract adna from samples further south.

We don't know. We don't even know what we don't know.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

J2 was already present near the Baltic Sea in the Bronze Age, which means that J2 arrived in Italy or Greece at least 2000 years before that, so in the Copper Age/Late Neolitich.

I don't care how much you try to spin it, that's that.

Once more, I seriously doubt J2 made its entry on the continent during the early Chalcolithic/LN era, nothing enables us to make such a wild guess at this point.

 

[Alan]

What he meant is that a few months ago, it was common knowledge that R1b arose in the Zagros/Taurus/Transcaucasus (which, ironically, also happens to be the area where most would place J1's emergence)... Until the Haak et al. 2015 results showed pretty conclusively that R1b is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe (since it was found on a ~7500 kya old hunter-gatherer from the Samara oblast).

I've been saying the above for some time now so as to advise caution against relying on contemporary data in the absence of ancient data.

The age of the Hunter and Gatherer who had Haplogroup R1b is irrelevant. For the million times, relevant is only the clade of R1b this H&G belonged to.

As far as I remember the H&G was downstream to R1b m269(most likely r1b z2103).


No m269
No m343
No P25
No P297

Even the Neolithic R1b in Spain was of an older clade. Haplogroup R1b alone has an estimated age of 22000 years. How on earth is R1b in some 7500 year old Samara burial, which is upstream to many R1b found in the Zagros/Taurus mountains, a prove that R1b originated there?

I have tried to explain why this reasoning for an R1b "origin in the Steppes" is absurd. And I am honestly tired of doing it over and over again.

By all respect but what you were saying for long time now is wrong. And Haak et al. hasn't proved the opposite, Haak didn't even come to the conclusion that R1b originated there, since as I said this would be absurd conclusion considering the age of R1b in general, and the subclade this Samara individual belonged.


So no I haven't seen any scientist coming to the idea that Haplogroup R1b originated in the Steppes, beside some hobby anthropologists on various bords who have not much idea about the timeline and tree of Haplogroup R1b.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

^^ The only absurd reasoning I can see here is your counterintuitive approach, you're arguing against the evidence at this point. Here's something you don't really seem to understand: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data (and that includes all age estimates based on the latter).

Furthermore, the Samara HG was ancestral for both M478 and M269, so by no stretch of mind can you possibly argue that he was Z2103, let alone "downstream to R1b m269". This just goes on to prove you don't know what you're talking about.

Finally, how likely is it that R1b didn't originate in the Pontic-Caspian steppe considering the fact we struggled to find R1b in Western Europe prior to the Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic while we immediately found not one but eight R1b individuals in a single region of the Pontic-Caspian steppe with a time-span covering the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic record? Again, what are the odds in this case? And let's not address the Karelian hunter-gatherer and MA1, that would just make things harder for the idiosyncratic approach you're proposing.

Once more, I suggest you take the time read the Haak et al. paper again, since it's pretty clear to me you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Alan]

Ok I am starting to get bored by this endless discussions of various Haplogroups, because most of the time obivious evidences are deliberately ignored.
As Angela said, J2 has so far only appeared in Europe in context with Indo Europeans in Bronze Age.

Now let's get deeper into this. We have a Bronze Age J2a individual from Hungary who shows the first signs of "eastern" ANE type admixture. No J* in Neolithic and Mesolithic samples. Clear hint of an Indo European origin.

Let's simply assume that Yamna origin of all Indo Europeans is right.We have the recent Haak paper which compares Yama with modern populations. We see that genetically(fst distance) the closest populations are Uralic Speakers such as Mordvins, Caucasic speakers such as Lezgians, Turkic speaking (pred. of Iranic origin with East Eurasian admixture) Chuvash and Slavic speaking Russians/Ukrainians.

Now let us take a look at the J2 Haplogroup map.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg


See that "peak" in Russia around the Urals? Coincidence? I don't think so.

Now let's take a look at the frequency of the most prominent Haplogroups among these populations above.

Mordvins R1a* 36%, J2* 14%, R1b* 11%, N* 15%
Chuvash R1a* 30%, J2* 13%, N* 28%
Lezgians J1* 43.5%, R1b* 21.5%, G2a* 17.5%, T 6%
Ukrainians R1a/ 45%, R1b* 7.5%, J2* 7%, N* 7.5%
unfortunately no data of ethnic Russians, only Russia as a country including the dozen of ethnic groups.

Now let's pick out the Haplogroups which appear in most of the above listed populations.
It's R1b, R1a, J*(more often J2) and N*

Again J2 is very prominent, coincidence? Haplogroup J2 is prominent in 2/3 of all Indo Europeans. Indo_Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Italic, Albanian, South Slavs, former Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian territory. Ironically all those listed groups are closer to the supposed Indo European homeland, be it the Steppes or be it the West Asian or South_Central Asian highlands. Only exception Slavs for who we have strong evidences that they spred more recently in former Iranic and Balkanic Indo European territory.

Another exception are Germanic and Celtic speakers, which is imo deluded due to Bottle Neck.

We can't be for 100% sure, but the evidences point strongly for an Indo European expansion firstly and a expansion via Minoans, Phoenician and Proto Caucasic speakers in Anatolia and the Caucasus, later.

 

[Alan]

^^ The only absurd reasoning I can see here is your counterintuitive approach, you're arguing against the evidence at this point. Here's something you don't really seem to understand: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data (and that includes all age estimates based on the latter).

Is that your rule or have you read this reasoning in any per reviewed study my dear "scientist". I have never in my life seen such an absurd reasoning. Hey you kno what, the "oldest " up to date example of Haplogroup G2a* was found in Europe. Therefore we should come to the conclusion that this Haplogroup originated there. Since as you said it doesn't matter that all upstream clades of G2* are found in Western Asia. As you said more important is where the oldest sample with the same Haplogroup was found. Thats the logic of someone who has no freakn idea what he is talking about.

The only one who doesnt seem to get into his head, that a 7500 year old Samara individual is not a prove for the origin of an 22000 year old Haplogroup, which on itself has more upstream clades as that found there, is you.

What on the words that an ancient sample which is downstream to R1b m343, found in one place of the world, is not the prove that this Haplogroup originated there?

Furthermore, the Samara HG was ancestral for both M478 and M269, so by no stretch of mind can you possibly argue that he was Z2103, let alone "downstream to R1b m269". This just goes on to prove you don't know what you're talking about.

If that is the case could you be so kind and show us the source for that? And even IF it was upstream to m478 and m269 this would place it somewhere around p297, which is still slightly younger than Anatolian m335 and Levantine/African V88. Which by the way is still younger than the Iberian Neolithic R1b (Either P25 or V88). And I am not even talking about P25 let alone m343 here. The matter of fact is, m343 has been only found in West and South_Central Asia so far. And West_SouthCentral Asia is the place with the highest diversity of this Haplogroup. Virtually 70% of it's clades are found there.

So explain me Einstein how does this prove an Steppic origin of R1b, if there is no m343 or even p25 and please show me one reliable Scientist who comes to the same conclusion.

And also try to explain me how an older or roughly as old R1b subclade turns up in a neolithic sample from Iberia with typical EEF aDNA, if this Haplogroup really "originated" in the Steppes?

I personally have an explanation how two subclades of roughly similar age could end up in two "very" different populations. One moving from West Asian together with farmers in Western direction, another moving with herders through South_Central Asia or the Caucasus towards the Steppes.

Finally, how likely is it that R1b didn't originate in the Pontic-Caspian steppe considering the fact we struggled to find R1b in Western Europe prior to the Chalcolithic/Late Neolithic while we immediately found not one but eight R1b individuals in a single region of the Pontic-Caspian steppe with a time-span covering the Mesolithic and Chalcolithic record? Again, what are the odds in this case? And let's not address the Karelian hunter-gatherer and MA1, that would just make things harder for the idiosyncratic approach you're proposing.

Look don't start an argument you can't win, We aren't here on ABF where your buddy Elias can save your face by giving a QFQ ban.

So because we haven't found any R1b in Western Europe(Who actually argued about a Western European origin of R1b?), and because we have ancient samples from the Pontic Steppes that is your "ultimate prove" that the Haplogroup has evolved there.

So you have ancient samples from South_Central and Western Asia to speak of an Pontic origin of R1b in such a convinced way? My God that argument is so stupid I don't even know where to start.

You probably have missed the part where scientists propose a Southeast/South Asian(around North India) origin of R* because the most basal clades of R* have been found in Southeast Asia. That's the same reason why your argument is invalid and completely absurd. Ancient DNA does not "trump" contemporary data IF the ancient DNA does not bring out a more basal and upstream clade.

But these scientist must be stupid, because according to your logic, the place of origin for a Haplogroup is there, where the oldest ancient Sample has been tested with. Not really where the highest diversity and basal clades of the Haplogoup has been found. Therefore Sibiria is the place of origin for Haplogroup R* and Europe for G2a*, Right?

My advice stop wasting my time with nonsensical arguments.

 

[Semitic Duwa]

^^ You do realise you're basically proving my point over and over again, don't you? If you didn't exist I'd simply have to invent you, just to show how disconnected from facts and reality your contention really is. There's no way around this, let me reiterate: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data.

Ironically-enough, you unconsciously acknowledge that simple fact by referring to the Bronze Age J2a sample from Hungary in order to turn J2 into a diagnostic PIE marker... In the same way, I could use this idiosyncratic approach of yours and start playing with TMRCA estimates.

But that's above the point really, you simply don't know what you're talking about and your post just convinces me further that you're arguing against the evidence (mostly by invoking contemporary data and making broad assumptions). I already told you you ought to read the Haak et al. study again, because that's where you're gonna discover that the Samaran HG was M478- and M269- for instance... By all means, do not believe anything I say and go see for yourself.

So far, you've managed to argue not only against archeogenetic data but linguistic data as well (by casting doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe's validity as the PIE urheimat). So yeah... Nonsensical arguments? Look who's talking.

 

[Alan]

^^ You do realise you're basically proving my point over and over again, don't you? If you didn't exist I'd simply have to invent you, just to show how disconnected from facts and reality your contention really is. There's no way around this, let me reiterate: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data.

how can an individual repeat the same nonsense over again by totally ignoring 99% of the arguments the opposite side brought up.

Since it seems you didn't understand me properly here I will repeat myself for you. Show me one scientists who came to the conclusion R1b originated in the Steppes or R* originated in Siberia based on this ancient Samples found there.

You lack the basic understanding, it might be the long standing contact to ABF type of people. Your Ad Hominum there is unforgotten

Ironically-enough, you unconsciously acknowledge that simple fact by referring to the Bronze Age J2a sample from Hungary in order to turn J2 into a diagnostic PIE marker... In the same way, I could use this idiosyncratic approach of yours and start playing with TMRCA estimates.

Holy cow you are comparing apples with oranges. Heck as always you are interpreting arguments into my post which I never stated.

Search out the sentence where I claimed J2 is all an Indo European marker. And stop throwing a few "intellectual" words you have catched up somewhere, into the room to act like you actually know what you are saying

Wait better I will quote myself.

We can't be for 100% sure, but the evidences point strongly for an Indo European expansion firstly and a expansion via Minoans and Proto Caucasic speakers in Anatolia and the Caucasus later.

What I said here is J2 was spred into Europe with Indo Europeans at first place. Or How does a "genius" like you assume J2 ended up in regions as far as the Altais and Central Asia? What do you think is the reason that J2 uniformly exists among all Indo_Iranians in significant percentage? Than I said another major wave came via Minoans and Proto Caucasic speakers . Which should make anyone with basic knowledge understand, "Aha so he is saying J2 was spred by various waves just that he thinks the first major wave into Europe came via the Indo Europeans".

This alone destroys your accusation so badly that you should be sitting ashamed in a corner.

Second how on freakn earth, does a statement of how a Haplogroup was spred say anything about the ultimate place of origin. So how is that a good comparison with what you claim?

E1b1b was spred into Europe by Neolithic farmers. Yet very likely originates in Northeast Africa. But according to your logic, since the majority of E1b1b was spred by Neolithic farmers, it's place of origin is also the place where the neolithic farmers started?

But that's above the point really, you simply don't know what you're talking about and your post just convinces me further that you're arguing against the evidence (mostly by invoking contemporary data and making broad assumptions). I already told you you ought to read the Haak et al. study again, because that's where you're gonna discover that the Samaran HG was M478- and M269- for instance... By all means, do not believe anything I say and go see for yourself.

The fact that in this post you concentrate more on attacking me personally instead of just trying to disprove my arguments above, simply means you just don't want to admit you made a joke out of yourself and do not have any answer for it.

Since you seem to haven't even read my post in your rage. Here I will quote it for you.

If that is the case could you be so kind and show us the source for that? And even IF it was upstream to m478 and m269 this would place it somewhere around p297, which is still slightly younger than Anatolian m335 and Levantine/African V88. Which by the way is still younger than the Iberian Neolithic R1b (Either P25 or V88). And I am not even talking about P25 let alone m343 here. The matter of fact is, m343 has been only found in West and South_Central Asia so far. And West_SouthCentral Asia is the place with the highest diversity of this Haplogroup. Virtually 70% of it's clades are found there.

So explain me Einstein how does this prove an Steppic origin of R1b, if there is no m343 or even p25 and please show me one reliable Scientist who comes to the same conclusion.

So again even if this Samara individual was -m269 and -m478 it is still younger than the Iberian neolithic R1b and downstream to m343 and p25.

So far, you've managed to argue not only against archeogenetic data but linguistic data as well (by casting doubt on the Pontic-Caspian steppe's validity as the PIE urheimat). So yeah... Nonsensical arguments? Look who's talking.

Yep since I am the only one who has his doubts on the PC Steppe theory. And not a single scientist has come to any other idea. Doubting something doesn't mean you refute it. Again you are simply not smart enough to understand the difference. All I said is there is the possibility that PC Steppes is not the Homeland of all Indo Europeans and PIE per se. But how does this mean I am not accepting this model? I am simply taking other models into account too.
By the way where are your scientists who place R1b origin on the Steppes. I must have missed them. And don't even try to distract. The Urheimat wasn't even our topic.


just let it go and stop wasting my time. The moment you ignored my statements and started to concentrated more on my personality was the moment you lost this debate.

 

[Angela]

Gentlemen, enough with the accusations that the other doesn't know what he's talking about, and this is stupid and that's nonsense. Keep it civil please. It always becomes apparent who, in a particular argument, is armed with logic and who isn't. No need to name call. Not saying we haven't all strayed over the line on occasion, but let's watch it.

That said...

Alan: Haplogroup R1b alone has an estimated age of 22000 years. How on earth is R1b in some 7500 year old Samara burial...a proof that R1b originated there?

It obviously isn't, whether people want to argue about the date for R1b by a few thousand years or not, and whatever the specific clade of R1b the hunter gatherer possessed. It was M269 negative, however, to the best of my recollection. The point is that it's not a very basal or upstream clade of R1b.

I should add that I don't know where it originated and neither does anyone else. It could also have been Siberia, or Central Asia, or West Asia or somewhere in between. A lot of factors have to be considered, including the trajectory of V88, the Neolithic R1b in Iberia, and how M343 fits into all of this. That inclines me against a Siberian origin, but as for the rest of the possibilities, I'm an agnostic for the present. These are all just educated guesses. I'm content to wait for more data.

Semitic Duwa: Ancient DNA trumps contemporary data.

That's not in any way dispositive. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly the R1b hunter gatherer only proves that R1b was on the steppe 7,000 years ago. It doesn't prove it "originated" there, even if you think that "Mal'ta" proves that "R" originated in Siberia. It depends on the direction of gene flow after Mal'ta. Your conclusions are based on a lot of assumptions.

It's beyond me why some hobbyists are so emphatic in insisting on certain positions when we just don't have enough data yet. Well, forget that. I do know what is behind some of it, at least.

Semitic Duwa: Once more, I suggest you take the time read the Haak et al. paper again.

Could you please direct us as to specifically where in Haak et al 2015 the researchers opined on where R1b originated? The relevant page reference would be helpful.

Oh, could you also cite any academic papers which have reached that conclusion as of this date, i.e. that R1b is "native" to or originated on the steppe? "Spread from" is not the same as the "origination" point. You seem to use some terms in a very "loose" fashion. Thanks.

Ed. I see some of my points have already been made.