How is it possible for I1 to exist?

The first study puts forth an idea of organized mounted warfare that depends on the earliest appearance of bronze jointed bits. They acknowledge that horses were domesticated 3500-4500 BC but that bits weren't in common use until 1000 BC.

I think that's a leap to say that there could not have been organized mounted warfare in 2500-3500 years of having domesticated horses.

You don't need a complicated bit or a saddle to fight on horseback, and certainly not a chariot

From: http://www.academia.edu/3535004/The_...d_warfare_2011


On the subject of horse sizes, the Eneolithic (5200–3300 BC) horses of the Eurasian steppes were big enough to ride into battle. More than 70% of the Late Eneolithic horses at Dereivka,Ukraine (4200–3700 BC) and Botai, Kazakhstan (3600–3100 BC) stood 136–144 cm a tthe withers (shoulders), or about 13–14 hands high (Benecke and von den Dreisch2003;Bibikova1970). The horses ridden into battle by Roman cavalrymen commonly measured 120–150 cm at the withers (Hyland1990, p. 68), and those of the American Plains Indians stood about 130–140 cm, or ‘a little under 14 hands’ (Ewers1955, p. 33. Eneolithic steppe horses were about the same size as Roman and American Indian cavalry horses. On the question of rope bits, the authors conducted a riding experiment in which two expert riders rode never-bitted horses with rope and leather bits (Brownand Anthony1998; Anthony et al.2006). Our riders had ‘no problem’ controlling their horses. The American Plains Indians, regarded in the nineteenth century as among thefinest light cavalry in the world, used a ‘war bridle’ that was just a rope looped around the lower jaw (Ewers1955, p. 76). History and experiment both show that horses the same size as Eneolithic steppe horses can be ridden effectively at a gallop, even in warfare, with a rope bit

Horses probably were domesticated as an inexpensive source of winter meat by people who already possessed herds of domesticated cattle and sheep. The bones of domesticated cattle and sheep first appeared in sites in the western steppes, between the Dnieper and Ural Rivers, north of the Black and Caspian Seas, about 5300–4800 BC

Horse-head maces signaled an iconic status for horses in the lower Danube valley at about 4200–3800 BC; just when horses were introduced, the intrusive Suvorovo graves appeared, and hundreds of long-established tell settlements were abandoned. Mounted raiding could have contributed to the Karanovo VI–Gumelnit¸a collapse(Anthony2007, chapter 11,2010).
 
See, first horses were used only for transportation. This horses can trot 50 km a day with a man on their back and weapons. Even if these warriors fight on foot and use horses only for transport, they will outmaneuver infantry and come to the battle rested, unlike infantry marching to the fight for few days and being exhausted. American Indians used horses like this at the beginning. Just ride them to the battle or for a sneak attack far away.

Cavalry existed around the world pretty much till WW2. If it wasn't effective in a battle it would have been dropped long time ago like chariots, right? In reality..., I would love to see you standing there in front of few thousand strong cavalry galloping at you, ground is literally shaking, the roar of hoofs is getting closer and closer, and this immense mass of horses and men is going to hit you soon with speed...

I have not the movie nor the reporter's pictures but I agree about the reasoning.
I don't know the size of the first steppes poneys but after some selection it has produced somewhere some very robust, healthy and speedy little hairy horses like the Bretons' ones in the 800's (9th cy) very mobile and superior to higher horses on hilly grovy grounds, allowing approaches with a rain of projected spears and an immediate retreat before other same attack: the Franks had bad rememberings of that.
 
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30405-Tracing-the-genetic-origin-of-Europe-s-first-farmers

This was the thread discussing the find of the earliest I1 found. It's in Hungary in the LBK culture, but was the only one found among mostly G2a and another I*. Autosomally I think this I1 was mostly EEF.

I read that no samples of the Funnel Beaker DNA have been obtained. The maps of that zone and the time period could probably solve the I1 mystery if enough samples are discovered.

Concerning the Western part of FBK (Long Barrows and affiliated megaliths cultures input) I rather think the most of males were Y-I2a2 (most numerous?) and a kind of Y-I2a1b - concerning the East-Germany-Poland part, I'm less sure and some Y-I1 's coud have been involved, yes, with some rare others Y-haplos?. Who knows for now?
 
M253 and H5 heatmap from my Geno2 nextgen results

ydna m253heatmap.JPG

mtdnah5heatmap.JPG
 
Oh my god the Ydna migration map is so wrong. Who ever made it didn't take much time making it hahahha, from Anatolia to central Asia xD .. and don't get me started on that trans-continental epic path to Manchuria or whatever xD.

Yeah that's why I posted it. That's not even Manchuria it's more like Tunguzia or something. I thought NatGeo should be a 100% legit and professional but those maps definitely look kinda odd.
 
I1 certainly didn't exist in only one population for 20,000+ years. Think about it. Basically all R1b today is R1b M269. R1b split from R1a probably like 25,000 years ago and R1b M269 expanded lass than 10,000 years ago. Now that doesn't mean R1b remained isolated in one population which then left isolation 6,000 years ago. Ancient DNA from Europe shows R1b1 was very popular and widespread in the Mesolithic. What happened is 90%+ of that Mesolithic R1b1 went extinct and single Mesolithic R1b1 lineage known as R1b M269 rapidly expanded maybe begging in 4000 BC.

The same is probably the case for I1. I1 probably existed in several Mesolithic populations and then in around 3000 BC or whatever a single I1 lineage became very popular while most of the other I1 lineages became extinct.

Also, the oldest example of I1 is from some of mainland Europe's first farmers.
 
Many Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages disappeared (or significantly reduced) after the arrival of PIE speakers, C1a2-V20 and H2 almost don't exist in Europe anymore, the majority of G2a branches that were not assimilated by Indo-Europeans are confined to mountainous regions and Mediterranean Islands in low numbers,

H2 still consistently pops up in Europe. It isn't odd for G2a to reach 5% and it's rare for it to be at 0%. It makes more sense any G2a in Europe is simply left overs from the first farmers than the Indo European stuff. What we used to call Germanic I2a2-M223 might actually be WHG-thenEEF I2a2a-M223 and this lineage is everywhere in Europe. Lastly British Neolithic specfic I2a clades also take up a few percent sometimes 5-10% of modern Isles Y DNA.
 
I've been mulling over the I1 genesis for a while now and wanted to bounce this idea here:

Was I1 merely a successful I* nested within the spreading EEF G2a population?

IJK was out of Africa and in the "old world" zone. K are those who went east/northeast, J are those who stayed, and I2 went west/northwest and populated Europe after it thawed.

I have seen instances of I* found in northern Iran and sprinkled around generally in that area.

So lets separate the I2 and I* into two batches. Those who left to Europe and those who stayed behind, like the J's. During the early european farmer expansion containing mostly G2a, perhaps there was an I*, the first person to develop the M253 mutation.

We do have the first I1 sample in Hungary in the LBK culture, which was autosomally EEF and autosomally similar to the G2a found. Nowhere else among all the I2 samples do we find I1. I1 spread into Scandinavia and largely reproductively outperformed the I2 already there.

Now there could be many kinds of I*, there could have been I* who lived among the I2 but were different from the I* left behind in the east. We need more data, obviously, but some things could help:

1. YDNA samples from Funnel Beaker (currently have zero)
2. Some type of I* analysis to see where exactly they fall, such as closeness to I1, I2, etc. How are the I* found in Europe different from those elsewhere? I think that with some deep analysis we could get a clue to the formation of I1. Is there any good info or detailed analysis of I* out there? I suppose I'll start tracking I* lists and see if they list SNPs.
 
I've been mulling over the I1 genesis for a while now and wanted to bounce this idea here:

Was I1 merely a successful I* nested within the spreading EEF G2a population?

IJK was out of Africa and in the "old world" zone. K are those who went east/northeast, J are those who stayed, and I2 went west/northwest and populated Europe after it thawed.

I have seen instances of I* found in northern Iran and sprinkled around generally in that area.

So lets separate the I2 and I* into two batches. Those who left to Europe and those who stayed behind, like the J's. During the early european farmer expansion containing mostly G2a, perhaps there was an I*, the first person to develop the M253 mutation.

We do have the first I1 sample in Hungary in the LBK culture, which was autosomally EEF and autosomally similar to the G2a found. Nowhere else among all the I2 samples do we find I1. I1 spread into Scandinavia and largely reproductively outperformed the I2 already there.

Now there could be many kinds of I*, there could have been I* who lived among the I2 but were different from the I* left behind in the east. We need more data, obviously, but some things could help:

1. YDNA samples from Funnel Beaker (currently have zero)
2. Some type of I* analysis to see where exactly they fall, such as closeness to I1, I2, etc. How are the I* found in Europe different from those elsewhere? I think that with some deep analysis we could get a clue to the formation of I1. Is there any good info or detailed analysis of I* out there? I suppose I'll start tracking I* lists and see if they list SNPs.

My personal opinion is that talking about I1 is misleading because 99% of I1 are DF29 but DF29 is much much younger. So for me the Hungarian sample from 7000 years ago gets lumped into the same boat as the various other I or I1 branches that died off over 27,000 years. The question is what was the genesis of DF29. What caused such a young subclade to expand? Was it purely the Germanic or Viking migrations over the past 1500 years?
 
My personal opinion is that talking about I1 is misleading because 99% of I1 are DF29 but DF29 is much much younger. So for me the Hungarian sample from 7000 years ago gets lumped into the same boat as the various other I or I1 branches that died off over 27,000 years. The question is what was the genesis of DF29. What caused such a young subclade to expand? Was it purely the Germanic or Viking migrations over the past 1500 years?

That Hungarian sample attributed to LBK called "BAB 5" was tested for only I-M270 (I) and I-M253 (I1). We don't know if he was DF29 or any of the other 303 I1 markers.

The I* in that group had rather ambiguous test results. He was solidly positive for F but the I-M270 was sketchy. Negative for J though so they place him in I*.

The SNP tests performed on these old samples aren't very detailed at all. I suspect it's related to sample quality & quantity but if there's a chance we could get BAB 5 DNA to a full Y genome I would be so excited.

BAB5 also didn't have any solid dating in the study. They stuck him in that group based on proximity I suppose.
 
https://yfull.com/tree/I1/

There are currently 31 Yfull kits tested that are I1 but aren't under DF29. They still have the same 304 mutations of I1 though.

I'm not sure when M-253 developed. Was it early in the I1 chain of mutations or late? If it were late then there could be many I* that are actually just pre-M253 I1 but still would be considered I1.
 
https://yfull.com/tree/I1/

There are currently 31 Yfull kits tested that are I1 but aren't under DF29. They still have the same 304 mutations of I1 though.

I'm not sure when M-253 developed. Was it early in the I1 chain of mutations or late? If it were late then there could be many I* that are actually just pre-M253 I1 but still would be considered I1.

That's a good point. Which of those 304 mutations are old and from the time when I1 split from I2 and which of those mutations including M253 might be more recent. Hopefully more samples can be discovered with full y sequencing.
What's interesting is that those non DF29 samples all have a similar age to DF29. It's as if they all came from the same bottleneck and area but DF29 became much more successful.
 
Last edited:
My personal opinion is that talking about I1 is misleading because 99% of I1 are DF29 but DF29 is much much younger. So for me the Hungarian sample from 7000 years ago gets lumped into the same boat as the various other I or I1 branches that died off over 27,000 years. The question is what was the genesis of DF29. What caused such a young subclade to expand? Was it purely the Germanic or Viking migrations over the past 1500 years?

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-DF29/

Finland gets hits from start to finnish of the tree and all branches, explain that..
 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-DF29/

Finland gets hits from start to finnish of the tree and all branches, explain that..

Exactly. I have a very immature hypothesis that I1 is an Indo European lineage from the Steppe and that Finns are a mixture of an I1 Indo European speaking people and a N1c Uralic speaking people.
 
Exactly. I have a very immature hypothesis that I1 is an Indo European lineage from the Steppe and that Finns are a mixture of an I1 Indo European speaking people and a N1c Uralic speaking people.

I have been saying this for years but still think I1 came by boat, they where both running the long distance trade, came in to conflict and then later merged in Sweden-Finland.
This is the origin of Germanic language, Æsir–Vanir mythology, Odin/Väinämöinen, many sagas etc.


In the Scandinavian sources they are the descendants of Yngvi-Frey of Vanaheim. Yngling means descendant of Frey, and in the Gesta Danorum of Saxo Grammaticus they are called the sons of Frey. Several of these kings appear in Beowulf: Eadgils (Adils), Onela (Ale), and Ohthere (Ottar Vendelkråka), but here they are called Scylfings (see the Beowulf section below).
Snorri Sturluson hints at a less divine origin in Skáldskaparmál for this dynasty: One war-king was named Skelfir; and his house is called the House of Skilfings: his kindred is in the Eastern Land. In the 13th century, the official Swedish/Scandinavian term for the modern-day Southern Finland was "Eastern Land", Österland, i.e. the eastern half of Sweden at the time.
In Ynglinga Saga in 1220 AD, Snorri Sturluson discusses marriages between Swedish and Finnish royal families. In 1220 AD (c.), in the Skáldskaparmál section of Edda, Sturluson discusses King Halfdan the Old, Nór's great-grandson, and nine of his sons who are the forefathers of various royal lineages, including "Yngvi, from whom the Ynglings are descended". According to Orkneyinga Saga in 1230 AD, Nór founded Norway. He was a direct descendant of Fornjótr, the King of "Gotlandi, Kænlandi and Finnlandi".



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æsir–Vanir_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling
 
Exactly. I have a very immature hypothesis that I1 is an Indo European lineage from the Steppe and that Finns are a mixture of an I1 Indo European speaking people and a N1c Uralic speaking people.

I think that I1 was in Finland earlier than the Finns.
I1 came by boat, the Finns over land.
 
I have been saying this for years but still think I1 came by boat, they where both running the long distance trade, came in to conflict and then later merged in Sweden-Finland.
This is the origin of Germanic language, Æsir–Vanir mythology, Odin/Väinämöinen, many sagas etc.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æsir–Vanir_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngling

I think they were fishermen on the Baltic and became an important trading partner in the Nordic Bronze Age.
 
That Hungarian sample attributed to LBK called "BAB 5" was tested for only I-M270 (I) and I-M253 (I1). We don't know if he was DF29 or any of the other 303 I1 markers.

The I* in that group had rather ambiguous test results. He was solidly positive for F but the I-M270 was sketchy. Negative for J though so they place him in I*.

The SNP tests performed on these old samples aren't very detailed at all. I suspect it's related to sample quality & quantity but if there's a chance we could get BAB 5 DNA to a full Y genome I would be so excited.

BAB5 also didn't have any solid dating in the study. They stuck him in that group based on proximity I suppose.

If BAB5 has been tested for only 1 of the 304 markers, he is very unlikely to be ancestral to I1. That would be a big coincidence. Especially as we don't know whether M253 is an early or a late SNP in the row of 304.
 
https://yfull.com/tree/I1/

There are currently 31 Yfull kits tested that are I1 but aren't under DF29. They still have the same 304 mutations of I1 though.

I'm not sure when M-253 developed. Was it early in the I1 chain of mutations or late? If it were late then there could be many I* that are actually just pre-M253 I1 but still would be considered I1.

The TMRCA for DF29 is the same as for I1.
The TMRCA for both together is a very big starlike expansion that happened 4.6 ka.
 

This thread has been viewed 39576 times.

Back
Top