How is it possible for I1 to exist?

I1a3_Young

Regular Member
Messages
550
Reaction score
60
Points
28
Location
FL
Ethnic group
Basically British
Y-DNA haplogroup
I1 Z63*
mtDNA haplogroup
H5b1
I1 and I2 branched about 27,500 years ago.

From 27,500 ybp to 4600 ybp, the population containing I1 males was isolated or "bottle necked." This is known because all I1 have about 300 of the same mutation which is radically different than the other ydna hgs that I've read about.


How is this possible in Europe, considering 27.5k ybp was an ice age, then a warming, then the LGM (presumed forced migration). Everything I've seen about Europe's population and cultures have shown spreading, mixing, and replacing with a certain predictability. None of the other haplogroups had this isolation.

What part of Europe could these I1 have been in during the ice ages and in between? What caused them to come out of isolation 4600 ybp? Did they maintain a territory through strength but refuse to invade others until overwhelmed by R1b expansion?

How could the I1 mesolithics survive the incursion of neolithic farmers and maintain yDNA continuity? Was the neolithic farmer mixing after 4600 ybp?


Perhaps there were many I1 groups and only one small group survived, and all of that one small group would have the 300 mutations. But if that were true then it would mean the others were 100% wiped out. I find that as unlikely as one group surviving unmixed for the long period of time. It's absolutely mind boggling that any yDNA hg could maintain isolation in a highly contested Europe for about 23,000 years.
 
Sometimes it is just pure luck, or developing one or two advantages mutations to give it a bit more chance in the right time. Haplogroup C wasn't that lucky, though used to be more popular in Europe than I1.
 
Well I'm glad I'm not the only one who's confused about this. It does sound pretty crazy but apparently there are no other explanations yet.
 
I2 replaced all I*, except 1 man, ancestral to I1

I think this is very likely. Then somehow, there was a massive resurgence of I1 in the central and north central Europe which founder-effected Scandinavia.

The I1 expansion there would have been nearly as impressive as the European R1b expansion, but the R1b tree began with a much larger group. If this is the case, then it seems "lucky" for I1 to have done what it has.
 
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, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.
 
So this mystery I1 survivor and progenitor....shall we call him I1 Abraham or I1 Ghengis Khan?

Anyhow, it is remarkable for I1 to have "ridden the wave" and actually come out ahead from the other expansions into Europe.
 
In stochastic population growth models it is fully expected that a few paternal markers would rise to prominence at the expense of others. This has nothing to do with metal age rapists.

Many population growth processes can be approximated by Zipfian law. It explains haplotype frequencies very well:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/07/022160
 
Last edited:
In stochastic population growth models it is fully expected that a few paternal markers would grow to prominence at the expense of others. This has nothing to do with metal age rapists.

Many population growth processes can be approximated by Zipfian law. It explains haplotype frequencies very well:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/07/022160

Funny that they mention Ghengis Khan in the abstract which I had also just mentioned. I don't think it's unusual for any haplogroup to rise to prominence. It's unusual that I1 seemed to have been swept up in the wave of invasion by other people, and somebody translated a previous position of weakness to one of lasting power (from a gene pool perspective).
 
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, the two most numerous I2 subclades (I2a1b-CTS10228 and I2a2a-L801) are young and are associated with the Slavic and Germanic expansions in the Migration Period of the early middle ages, if you remove these two subclades the frequency of I2 in mainland Europe would significantly drop.

Haplogroup A1a* (M31) has been found in Finland, Norway and eastern England. This subclade is normally found along the west coast of Africa (Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mali, Morocco) and could have come to Europe during the Paleolithic. Indeed a few percent of sub-Saharan admixture was found among ancient DNA samples from Mesolithic Scandinavia tested by Skoglund et al. (2012). If this lineage survived in low numbers since the Paleolithic, then why couldn't a branch of Haplogroup I that would give rise to I1 later ?

I1 expanded during the Bronze age, my personal opinion is that I1 was assimilated early by the Corded Ware IE advance, but that alone isn't enough to give it this frequency, most I1 men today probably descend from a a lucky man that rose to prominence in the early Bronze Age and that allowed him and his progeny to increase their numbers and become a founding lineage in proto-Germanic society. a romantic story of survival and rise to power.

R.I.P Old Europe ... their only sin was fighting against a horde of horse riding screamers with bronze weapons .. a deadly mistake.

Something I noticed, the ancient Iberians (who were not Indo-European) worshipped a Horse taming god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberians#Art_and_religion), they must have realised that taming horses was the only way to resist Celtic incursions, maybe that was the reason they survived while others didn't.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but Corded Ware had nothing to do with horse riding warriors with bronze weapons. The early Corded Ware groups barely even had any copper and what they had wasn't very good. They certainly didn't have a lot of copper weapons. Metal weapons slowly infiltrated as time went on. Neither did BB have bronze. Again, just some copper, and as we can tell from the examination of grave finds, in a recent paper as well as in prior ones, not weapons, and inferior to Iberian Beaker copper.

As for horse riding, there's no actual evidence for that at all to my knowledge, just a lot of supposition and conjecture. Corded Ware didn't have many horses; their wagons were pulled by oxen. To the best of my recollection the earliest evidence of any kind for horse riding is to the east and quite a bit later. It did indeed spread quickly, but this tendency to conflate periods and ignore chronology isn't helpful; people writing on the internet and even published authors have done a great disservice to scholarship by making these kinds of errors.

What happened to Middle Neolithic Central and Northern Europe imo is in large part because of climate change reducing the population and causing changes in subsistence strategy. Given the latest dates showing earlier pastoralism in some areas of Central Europe than on the steppe, that subsistence strategy may have moved into the steppe, not out of it. Of course, further research and better dating might change that picture, so I'm no wedded to it.

Still, I think the picture is clear that in some places steppe admixed populations moved into almost empty landscapes, as in the far northeast, while in others they encountered much reduced populations, populations reduced not only by climate change and low crop yields and the resulting increase in known disease, but also by plague, a plague that the newcomers either brought with them or that went slightly ahead of them, and to which they probably had more resistance.

The same type of events helped to bring down Rome and the greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire.

Ed. Just to be clear, I'm by no means saying that there wouldn't have been violent conflict. I'm just saying that the narrative isn't, imo, quite what has been sold.
 
Is European Y-dna C even found among any modern groups or is it completely gone?
 
I agree with much of what you wrote, but Corded Ware had nothing to do with horse riding warriors with bronze weapons. The early Corded Ware groups barely even had any copper and what they had wasn't very good. They certainly didn't have a lot of copper weapons. Metal weapons slowly infiltrated as time went on. Neither did BB have bronze. Again, just some copper, and as we can tell from the examination of grave finds, in a recent paper as well as in prior ones, not weapons, and inferior to Iberian Beaker copper.

As for horse riding, there's no actual evidence for that at all to my knowledge, just a lot of supposition and conjecture. Corded Ware didn't have many horses; their wagons were pulled by oxen. To the best of my recollection the earliest evidence of any kind for horse riding is to the east and quite a bit later. It did indeed spread quickly, but this tendency to conflate periods and ignore chronology isn't helpful; people writing on the internet and even published authors have done a great disservice to scholarship by making these kinds of errors.

What happened to Middle Neolithic Central and Northern Europe imo is in large part because of climate change reducing the population and causing changes in subsistence strategy. Given the latest dates showing earlier pastoralism in some areas of Central Europe than on the steppe, that subsistence strategy may have moved into the steppe, not out of it. Of course, further research and better dating might change that picture, so I'm no wedded to it.

Still, I think the picture is clear that in some places steppe admixed populations moved into almost empty landscapes, as in the far northeast, while in others they encountered much reduced populations, populations reduced not only by climate change and low crop yields and the resulting increase in known disease, but also by plague, a plague that the newcomers either brought with them or that went slightly ahead of them, and to which they probably had more resistance.

The same type of events helped to bring down Rome and the greatly weakened the Byzantine Empire.

Ed. Just to be clear, I'm by no means saying that there wouldn't have been violent conflict. I'm just saying that the narrative isn't, imo, quite what has been sold.

Alright, I stand corrected on the Bronze weapons thing, as for horses, even if it is a conjecture as you say, I believe its a very reasonable one, using a bottom up approach, all daughter cultures that developed from Indo-European speakers glorified the horse, it is inconceivable for Corded Ware people not to have horses, maybe a shortage of that beautiful animal but not complete absence.

I agree with the rest, except the plague part, if the newcomers did bring a plague that they were immune to, then it must have affected the men more than the women, for some reason female lineages survived more than male ones.
 
Alright, I stand corrected on the Bronze weapons thing, as for horses, even if it is a conjecture as you say, I believe its a very reasonable one, using a bottom up approach, all daughter cultures that developed from Indo-European speakers glorified the horse, it is inconceivable for Corded Ware people not to have horses, maybe a shortage of that beautiful animal but not complete absence.

I agree with the rest, except the plague part, if the newcomers did bring a plague that they were immune to, then it must have affected the men more than the women, for some reason female lineages survived more than male ones.
Your bolded statement is very accurate. The same thing happened in the New World, although of course that was different because the difference in technology was indeed extreme.

That's why I added that there probably was violent conflict as well. I just think a lot of the narrative has been romanticized.

What may also have happened is that more women than men were included by the newcomers because more men made the migration than women to some degree, although I think the Reich Lab rejoinder to the latest paper analyzing the X chromosome indicates it wasn't as extreme as some people have proposed. The daughters of these women would have had a lot better chance for survival because of the genes of their fathers, a far better chance of survival than the daughters of the native fathers.

This part is obviously conjecture on my part as well, not fact like what's in the graves and other sites of the Corded Ware and BB people versus the people of MN Europe. Hopefully, as we get more and more samples, the scientists will be able to model better what happened.
 
I think the horse thing in warfare is exaggerated. The horse is mostly useful for transportation, I don't see why you kill someone easier if you're on a horse or not. To me it seems like it's pretty easy to mess someone up on a horse cuz they're an even bigger target who's less agile and you can kill the horse or injure it then the horse freaks out and might even do the killing for you. Just throw a spear at it or something shoot it with bow and arrow. Now horseback mounted archery that is a big advantage.
Having metal weapons would be a huge advantage against primitives who don't even have metallurgy.
 
I think the horse thing in warfare is exaggerated. The horse is mostly useful for transportation, I don't see why you kill someone easier if you're on a horse or not. To me it seems like it's pretty easy to mess someone up on a horse cuz they're an even bigger target who's less agile and you can kill the horse or injure it then the horse freaks out and might even do the killing for you. Just throw a spear at it or something shoot it with bow and arrow. Now horseback mounted archery that is a big advantage.
Having metal weapons would be a huge advantage against primitives who don't even have metallurgy.
Sure, skilful infantry knew how to deal with cavalry. However, warriors on horses have quite few advantages. They can move distances much quicker and carry more food and weapons. On battle field they could quickly outmaneuver infantry and mount surprise quick attack. With head on collision mass and speed of cavalry could kill infantry even without using weapons. Cavalry was often used to break defensive lines of infantry. Think blitzkrieg.
 
Sure, skilful infantry knew how to deal with cavalry. However, warriors on horses have quite few advantages. They can move distances much quicker and carry more food and weapons. On battle field they could quickly outmaneuver infantry and mount surprise quick attack. With head on collision mass and speed of cavalry could kill infantry even without using weapons. Cavalry was often used to break defensive lines of infantry. Think blitzkrieg.

I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject I'm speaking from an average dummy perspective. I'm just trying to point out that some comments in the thread are exaggerating this idea that warriors on horses or cavalry could easily defeat infantry warriors. There are advantages but there are disadvantages too. Advantage covering long distance, one on one battle with spears, axes and swords, you don't have a big advantage if you're on a horse. Even without weapons a guy on foot especially more than one guy could easily pull you off that horse.
Plus I highly doubt there were organized army battles of this sort going on during the so called Indo-European expansion into Europe. Where's any evidence of that?

However Eurasian steppe warriors with horseback mounted archery were like the special forces cavalry. They were really good and really made use of the horse in warfare. And they practically lived on the horse. Using the compound bow and the attack and retreat attack again strategy. As it's well known the Mongol Empire had huge success with that.
 
domestication of the horse was a long and gradual process
we know Khvalynsk culture already had an affinity to horses and they probably knew very much about the behaviour of horse herds and maybe also knew how to influence or drive such horse herds
this affinity to horses spread all over the steppe
the first changes in size of horses indicating domestication however is 4.5 ka in the Carpathian Basin in the late Vucedol area
maybe the central European Bell Beaker had some of these horses when they spread into northwestern Europe
we know the horse-drawn charriot developped in Sintashta 4 ka
these horses where well-trained for their job but it is still not a proof that they were ridden, on the contrary it is proof that efficient use of horses was only possible with chariots
 

This thread has been viewed 39572 times.

Back
Top