What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

nornosh said:
Hi I first believed Ydna is the main indicator of ones descent then Moderators came to teach me that adna shows complete picture, then I have studied the admixture maps of adna, which shows ENF admixtures, WHG admixtures togather form 4\5th of European admixture the ANE forms 10
-17%. So if we infer from these datas then IEs had little general affect on Europeans. Ydna is less important than adna which shows complete admixture rather than person's one line of descent.
Click to expand...

Your point is wrong. Adna is not more important than Y-dna in terms of Indo-European studies because our Genotype is not influenced by Cultural changes. Western European y-dna is mostly R1b-M269 > R1b-L51, wich we know from prehistoric datas that its expansion from the east will only be related at max 50% of EEF or EEF/WHG and the rest from Steppe ( ANE ).

Therefore what you are talking about is that, the fact that EEF ancestry is dominant in western europe comparing to steppe ancestry makes a better fit to explain IE languages expansions comparing it to R1b majority in western europe. You are basically saying that your genetic package is more relevant than your forefathers to explain your language... wich i let you meditate if it makes sense to you.
 
halfalp said:
You cannot say R1a and R1b then R1a-Z95. The R1a from all Iran and Middle-East and Western Iran will mostly be R1a-Z93 wich Z95 is a downstream. As for R1b, its mostly Z2105 + minor lineages as V1636, for wich we all have almost a story. The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Germanic countries are not Z93 nor Z2103.
Click to expand...

The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Iran is not Z93 nor Z2103 too, both of them and their subclades don't exist in Iran, even 0.001℅.
 
Cyrus said:
The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Iran is not Z93 nor Z2103 too, both of them and their subclades don't exist in Iran, even 0.001℅.
Click to expand...

Virtually all Iranian R1's are R1b-Z2103 or R1a-Z93, prove me wrong.
 
halfalp said:
Your point is wrong. Adna is not more important than Y-dna in terms of Indo-European studies because our Genotype is not influenced by Cultural changes. Western European y-dna is mostly R1b-M269 > R1b-L51, wich we know from prehistoric datas that its expansion from the east will only be related at max 50% of EEF or EEF/WHG and the rest from Steppe ( ANE ).

Therefore what you are talking about is that, the fact that EEF ancestry is dominant in western europe comparing to steppe ancestry makes a better fit to explain IE languages expansions comparing it to R1b majority in western europe. You are basically saying that your genetic package is more relevant than your forefathers to explain your language... wich i let you meditate if it makes sense to you.
Click to expand...

Yes, genetic package is important in explaining their roots not language, ydna is important in setting one's language specially if they are the ruling class so they impose their language easily despite being less in numbers as the case with the Turkish language being imposed on 88% of local non Central asian population of turkey in the past, I am saying the same happened with IEs they made-up small ruling elite yet imposed their language(IE) on natives. See India for another example, the IE related people are minority(25%) yet their language is spread widely(75%) so could it happend in Europe too?
 
nornosh said:
Look the ones which are listed, L23* were not tested further for subclades so we can infere they belong to Z2103 or its vicinity clade unless new results published.
Click to expand...
No as you see they have found subclade of R1b1a2a (L23) in Iran but that is R1b1a2a1a (L151), not R1b1a2a2 (Z2103), reality differs from your imagination.
 
Cyrus said:
No as you see they have found subclade of R1b1a2a (L23) in Iran but that is R1b1a2a1a (L151), not R1b1a2a2 (Z2103), reality differs from your imagination.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing for the contrary yet where is the papers which shows they are L151, if its true then it will be revolutionary perhaps the biggest find in the last decade of genetic studies, I hope you provide the related research papers sooner.
 
I just searched about other haplogroups which have been found in the ancient sites in the northeast of Iran, in Turkmenistan a subclade of I2a2 has been found which dates back to more than 4,000 years ago, I think it can be related to the Germanic migration too.
Haplogroup-I2b.gif
 
Cyrus said:
I think you just want to fool yourself, just one ancient skeleton in Afghanistan has been analyzed and this haplogroup has been found (it is possible that it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this land too), a subclade of this haplogroup has been also found in the north of Pakistan, another important point is that this haplogroup still exists among the people of this region. This thing that what you or another person in this forum think about this genetic evidence, really doesn't matter, if you believe it is wrong, you should show me valid sources which fundamentally reject this DNA analysis.
Click to expand...

You can think what you want about me if you wish, but just so we're clear, they haven't published that paper due to dating issues, bad calls and other troubles. It's still a pre-print, and it was supposed to be finally published not too long ago, yet here we are still the pre-print and no word from them. By the way one of the authors himself said they were using a new Y-calls software that has some serious issues, not to mention that DNA contamination and damaged DNA issues, he answers questions on his Twitter page. Do you know what low coverage means? Do you know the implications of a + SNP call when the upstream SNPs have a - call? Do you know what that means? It means that the + call is most definitely incorrect. Do you really think it is possible for someone to be R-P311 but negative for L51, L23, M269 and M343 (and the phyloequivalents of each)? If you think that's possible then I don't know what to say. All the Y-calls are being reassessed and we'll know the final answer when they finally publish the results. Besides, your Darra-i Kur sample is flagged as damaged in the excel file from the paper.


What I or other forum members think? Try what everyone is thinking. Everyone is asking the same questions about this study because the SNP calls are inconsistent. Manually checking it is the best bet right now, and people have manually checked it (see my quote of Angela quoting Megalophias). We'll know more when this is past the pre-print stage and finalized.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RohlfsenChad/status/980200022284357632


I got curious and here is some data of Darra-i Kur and I8998 (aka S8998) from the Ycall file that one of the authors uploaded to Dropbox:


Ancestral means - (negative), derived means +(positive)
Sample ID Haplogroup Ancestral Derived

Darra-i Kur is some kind of BT, the sample is damaged (as per another supplementary excel file) so who knows what the real Y-hg is. Hell, it's not even clear what haplogroup it is, we just know that he is probably something under BT, which is no surprise, since that's a lot of people. With the way phylogeny works these SNP calls contradict each other at a fundamental level, how can you be positive for a mutation but have multiple ancestral calls for upstream markers? It's not possible, for example you can't be I2a but negative for I2, I, AND IJ but positive for haplogroup R mutations. Like getting 100% on a test but getting half of the questions wrong, it's a mistake. In this case it is a mistake made by a new software they used.

Darra-I Kur is a damaged sample and that is even stated in the paper’s supplementary table also the amount of SNP coverage (36,481 << that’s pretty low coverage) is poor and reflects the damage.


Numbers on left are ancestral (-) and numbers on far right column are (+)
Darra.I.Kur_d A00 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d A0-T 0 2
Darra.I.Kur_d BT 0 1
Darra.I.Kur_d A1b1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d DE 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d A1b1b2b 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d D 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E2b 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C2b 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1a2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E2b1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C2e1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1a2b 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C2e1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G1b 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G2a 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H3 5 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1a2a2 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E2b1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C1a1a2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H3a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H3b 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d I 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d LT/K1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C2b1a2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C2e1a1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H1b2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H3b1 3 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1b1b1b1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C1b1a1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H1b2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H3a2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H3a2b 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1b1a1a1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1b1a1a1c 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d I1a3 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d I2a2 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1a2b1a1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1b1b1a1b1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d C1b1a1a1a1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H1a1d2c2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1b1a1a1c2b2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G2a2a1a2a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G2a2b2b1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H1a1d2b2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d I1a2a1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O2a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d Q1b 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d E1b1a1a1c2c1a 2 0
Darra.I.Kur_d H1a1d2c1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O2a2b 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d Q1b2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G2a2b2a1a1c2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d T1a3b2a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O1b1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d Q1a2c 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d Q1b2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G2a2b2a1a1a2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O1a1a1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O2a2b2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d G2a2b2a1a1c1a1a1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O1b1a1a1a2 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O1b1a1a1b1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d O2a2b1a1a6b 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1a1a1b2a2a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a 0 1 (1 derived, no corroborating calls for upstream)
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a1c3 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a2a3 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a2a1a1b1a1a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b3a 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a2c1g1b1 1 0
Darra.I.Kur_d R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a 1 0
Click to expand...


This guy (is I8998 Swat IA) he is most definitely not U106. He has 25 derived calls for R, one derived call for R2. He's probably some kind of R, maybe R2. He is definitely not R-U106, and again we'll know the full story when they finalize the paper and share their haplogroup corrections, which has actually happened. We already know their Y-calls were an issue.
ID HG ANCESTRAL DERIVED
S8998.E1.L1 A00 36 0
S8998.E1.L1 A0-T 0 12
S8998.E1.L1 A0 16 0
S8998.E1.L1 A1 0 6
S8998.E1.L1 A0a 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 A0b 12 0
S8998.E1.L1 A1a 8 0
S8998.E1.L1 A1b 0 4
S8998.E1.L1 A0a1 9 1
S8998.E1.L1 A0a2 4 0
S8998.E1.L1 A1b1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 BT 1 194
S8998.E1.L1 CT 1 104
S8998.E1.L1 DE 15 0
S8998.E1.L1 CF 0 2
S8998.E1.L1 E 74 0
S8998.E1.L1 D 25 0
S8998.E1.L1 C 79 1
S8998.E1.L1 F 0 13
S8998.E1.L1 D1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D2 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 GHIJK 0 1
S8998.E1.L1 D1b 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 G 93 0
S8998.E1.L1 HIJK 0 1
S8998.E1.L1 D1b2 19 0
S8998.E1.L1 H 17 0
S8998.E1.L1 IJK 0 1
S8998.E1.L1 D1a1a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1a2a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b2a 19 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 H2 4 0
S8998.E1.L1 H3 88 0
S8998.E1.L1 IJ 6 0
S8998.E1.L1 K 0 1
S8998.E1.L1 D1a2a1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1a2 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1d1 20 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b2a1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b2a2 4 0
S8998.E1.L1 I 57 0
S8998.E1.L1 J 63 1
S8998.E1.L1 LT/K1 10 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2 0 1
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1a2a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1d1a 46 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1d1b 5 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1a1 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1a2 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1b1 103 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1b2 20 0
S8998.E1.L1 L/K1a 36 1
S8998.E1.L1 T/K1b 30 0
S8998.E1.L1 NO/K2a 4 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2c 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2d 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1a2b1 4 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1a1d 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1a2a 7 1
S8998.E1.L1 H1b2a 43 0
S8998.E1.L1 NO1 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2b1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 P/K2b2 0 1
S8998.E1.L1 D1b1a2b1a 4 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1a1d1 43 1
S8998.E1.L1 H1a1d2 43 0
S8998.E1.L1 H1a2a1 42 0
S8998.E1.L1 T1a 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 N/K2a1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 O/K2a2 28 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2b1b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 M/K2b1d 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 P1/K2b2a 0 9
S8998.E1.L1 T1a1 7 0
S8998.E1.L1 T1a2 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 N1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 O1 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 O2 5 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2b1a1 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2b1a2 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 K2b1a3 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 S/K2b1a4 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 M1 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 M2 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 Q/K2b2a1 10 0
S8998.E1.L1 R/K2b2a2 0 25 (some kind of R)
S8998.E1.L1 R1 12 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2 0 1<<< this makes more sense
S8998.E1.L1 R1a 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b 1 0(1 ancestral, 0 derived)
S8998.E1.L1 R2a 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1 6 1(6 ancestral, 1 derived)
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a 10 0(10 ancestral, 0 derived)
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1c 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a2 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a 11 0(11 ancestral calls)
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a2b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a1 1 0(ancestral)
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2 17 1(17 ancestral, 1 derived)
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a2b2 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a2b2b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a2b2c 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a3 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a2 2 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a2b2b1 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a1b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a2b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a3a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a3b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b2a1b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b2a2a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b2a2b 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1a 3 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a2a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R2a3a2b2a1a 1 0
S8998.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a1b1 1 0
Click to expand...
As you can see there are a lot of contradictions in these SNP calls (false positives, etc). How can a haplogroup such as R-P311 be assigned when there are no supporting derived calls upstream of P311? How can one be assigned R-U106 when they are clearly negative for upstream SNPs? It really looks like Megalophias and several others who've looked at this already are correct in their assessment of the Ycall excel sheet from the paper provided via Dropbox. The Y-calls contradict the haplogroup assignments here, no question. Hell, even MA1 (Ma'alta boy) was given a weird call, when we already know he is just R*. Anyway, this is all we can say now until the raw data is released and then people can really dig into the SNP calls.


Hell, I have even looked at their calls for the I2a2a guys and they were negative for upstreams like IJ, I-M170, I2a2, etc. The Y-calls really need to be reassessed for this study, and they are working on that.


halfalp said:
You cannot say R1a and R1b then R1a-Z95. The R1a from all Iran and Middle-East and Western Iran will mostly be R1a-Z93 wich Z95 is a downstream. As for R1b, its mostly Z2105 + minor lineages as V1636, for wich we all have almost a story. The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Germanic countries are not Z93 nor Z2103.
Click to expand...


Indeed, but here we go....


halfalp said:
The South and Central Asian paper is a complete shit show with a lot of weird calls, dating and assumptions. Its been postponed for a lot of times now and is probably not a good argument until the complete paper is out and that people have put their hands on the samples. As exemple, the preprint of the paper came 2 months before the preprint for the Caucasus paper, wich was out a few months earlier on.
Click to expand...


Agreed, I hope when they finally publish it with everything revised and finalized we'll finally be totally confident in the results.


Cyrus said:
The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Iran is not Z93 nor Z2103 too, both of them and their subclades don't exist in Iran, even 0.001℅.
Click to expand...



You sure about that?


Underhill et. al. (2015) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/#__sec7title


In the complementary R1a-Z93 haplogroup, the paragroup R1a-Z93* (Figure 3b) is most common (>30%) in the South Siberian Altai region of Russia, but it also occurs in Kyrgyzstan (6%) and in all Iranian populations (1–8%). R1a-Z2125 (Figure 3c) occurs at highest frequencies in Kyrgyzstan and in Afghan Pashtuns (>40%). We also observed it at greater than 10% frequency in other Afghan ethnic groups and in some populations in the Caucasus and Iran. Notably, R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) occurs at high frequency in South Asia: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Himalayas. The group also occurs at >3% in some Iranian populations and is present at >30% in Roma from Croatia and Hungary, consistent with previous studies reporting the presence of R1a-Z93 in Roma.31, 51Finally, the rare R1a-M560 was only observed in four samples: two Burushaski speakers from north Pakistan, one Hazara from Afghanistan, and one Iranian Azeri. - Underhill et al (2015)
Click to expand...


R-Z93 subclades are found amongst Iranian-speaking populations. Even if the rate is low in Iran, it is still there. Again though, there was a population already present in Iran prior to the arrival of Iranian speakers. We already know J2 is the most common haplogroup in Iran, it seems more likely to me at least that we have an Iranian-speaking elite with a native substrate, we see this in a lot of places in history, not a new phenomenon. The elite-dominance mechanism is seen in a lot of places.

In response to you saying that there is no Z2103…


to quote Grugni et. al. (2012):
Eighty-eight Y-chromosome binary genetic markers were hierarchically genotyped as AFLP (YAP, [30]), RFLP (M2 [31], SRY10831.2 [32], M12 [33]; P15 [34]; M74 [35]; M34, M60, M61, M67, M70, M76, M78, M81, M175, M198, M207, M213 [36]; LLY22g, P36.2, P43 [37]; M123, M172 [38]; M242, M253, M285 [23]; V12, V13, V22 [39]; M377 [24]; P128, P287 [40]; M406 [41]; M269 [42]; Page08 [43]; V88 [44]; M458 [45]; PAGE55 [46]; L23, M412 [47]; L91 [48]; M527, M547, Page19, P303, U1 [49]), by DHPLC (M217 [50]; M25, M35, M47, M68, M69, M82, M92, M124, M170, M173, M174, M201, M205, M214, M216 [36]; M429 [51]; P209 [40]; M241, M267, M343 [23]; M357, M378, M410 [24]; M346 [40]; M434, M458 [45]; M530 [46]; L497, P16 [49]), and direct sequencing (M18 [33]; M42, M73, M75, M96 [52]; M33, PN2 [36]; MEH2 [53]; M317 [24]; M356 [54]; M438 [51]; P297 [40]). - Grugni et al (2012)
Click to expand...

Do you see in the list of tested SNPs “Z2103”? I don’t. It means they didn’t test for it.

R-L23* shown as 8.5% in list you just linked, however again, this study which we already know didn't test more than the SNPs listed didn't test for Z2103. Do you see why this study doesn't really tell us much? We can't see the specific breakdown of the clades. So how much of that L23 (barring those which are indeed L23*) are Z2103? This is the same study that we already debated about R1a because of basal offshoots, this could be remedied if samples could be retested for downstream deeper SNPs. I wish they would do that for the sake of refinement at least. Let's wait for the final publication of the Central and South Asian study before we using it as a reference in discussions just yet.

But go ahead, deny this.
 
In regards to your comments about the I2 samples:
Again,
I1003 A00 5 0
I1003 A0-T 0 1
I1003 A1a 1 0
I1003 A0a1 2 0
I1003 BT 0 7
I1003 A1b1a 1 0
I1003 CT 0 3
I1003 B3 1 0
I1003 A1b1b2b 1 0
I1003 B2a 1 0
I1003 E 11 0
I1003 D 1 0
I1003 C 6 0
I1003 E2 1 0
I1003 E1a 5 0
I1003 E2b 3 0
I1003 G 3 0
I1003 E1a1 4 0
I1003 E1a2 2 0
I1003 C1b2 1 0
I1003 C2e2 1 0
I1003 G2 1 0
I1003 E1a2a 1 0
I1003 E1b1b 1 0
I1003 D1b2a 1 0
I1003 C1b2a 2 0
I1003 C2b1a 1 0
I1003 G2a 1 0
I1003 H2 1 0
I1003 H3 3 0
I1003 IJ 1 0 (< red flag, it’s negative for IJ)
I1003 E1a2a2 2 0
I1003 E1b1a1 1 0
I1003 E1b1b2 1 0
I1003 D1b1d1 1 0
I1003 C2e2a1 1 0
I1003 H3a 3 0
I1003 H3b 2 0
I1003 I 3 1 (3 negative calls here, contradicts the call)
I1003 J 3 0
I1003 LT/K1 1 0
I1003 E1b1b1d 1 0
I1003 D1b1d1a 3 0
I1003 C1b1a1a 2 0
I1003 C1b1a2b 1 0
I1003 C2b1a2a 2 0
I1003 G2a2a 1 0
I1003 H1b1 10 1
I1003 H1b2 4 0
I1003 H3a1 3 0
I1003 H3a2 3 0
I1003 H3b1 4 0
I1003 I1 2 0
I1003 L/K1a 4 0
I1003 T/K1b 2 0
I1003 E1a2a1b1 1 0
I1003 C1b1a1a1 1 0
I1003 G2a1a1 2 0
I1003 G2a2b1 1 0
I1003 H1b2a 3 0
I1003 H3a2b 4 0
I1003 J2a 0 1 (also not likely, negative for J and IJ)
I1003 J2b 1 0
I1003 D1b1d1a1a 1 0
I1003 G2a2b2b 1 0
I1003 H1a1d1 3 0
I1003 H1a1d2 2 0
I1003 H1a2a1 2 0
I1003 H3a2a2 1 0
I1003 O/K2a2 1 0
I1003 K2b1b 1 0
I1003 E1b1b1a1a1 2 0
I1003 J2a1b 1 0
I1003 M1 1 0
I1003 Q/K2b2a1 1 0
I1003 R/K2b2a2 0 1 (more likely)
I1003 E1b1a1a1c2a 1 0
I1003 E1b1a1a1c2b 1 0
I1003 E1b1a1a1d1a 1 0
I1003 E1b1b1b2a1b 1 0
I1003 H1a1d2c2 2 0
I1003 I2a1b1 1 0
I1003 T1a1a 1 0
I1003 O2a 1 0
I1003 E1b1a1a1c2c2 1 0
I1003 H1a1d2c2a 1 0
I1003 I2a1a1a 0 1 (can't be I2a1a1a ,negative for I-M170 and IJ)
I1003 Q1b 1 0
I1003 E1b1a1a1c2c1b 1 0
I1003 E1b1a1a1c2c3c 1 0
I1003 G2a2b2a1a1b 1 0
I1003 O2a2b 1 0
I1003 Q1b1 2 0
I1003 Q1b2 3 0
I1003 G2a1a1a1a1a1 1 0
I1003 I1a3a1a1c 0 1 (definitely not since negative for I1, I-M170 and IJ)
I1003 O1b1a1 2 0
I1003 Q1a1a 1 0
I1003 R1b1a 1 0
I1003 G2a2b2a1a1b1a 1 0
I1003 O1b1a2a 1 0
I1003 O1b1a2b 1 0
I1003 O1b2a1a 2 0
I1003 Q1a1b1 1 0
I1003 E1b1a1a1c1a1c1a1 1 0
I1003 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 1 0
I1003 T1a1a1b2b2 1 0
I1003 O2a1c1a5 1 0
I1003 R1b1a1a2 1 0
I1003 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1a1 1 0
I1003 N1c1a1a1a1 1 0
I1003 O1b1a1a1a1 1 0
I1003 O2a2b1a2a1a3 1 0
I1003 O2a2b1a2a1a3b 1 0
I1003 R1a1a1b1a2b3a 1 0
I1003 O2a2b1a2a1a3b2b1 1 0
I1003 R1b1a1a2a1a2a1a 1 0
I1003 R1b1a1a2a1a2b1c1b 1 0
Click to expand...
Not to mention that our oldest samples of I2 are in Europe. So it would more likely be a migration of I2 carriers OUT of Europe if these guys are indeed actually I2, however judging by the calls here, they aren't.
Now the other “I2” from the pre-print of Narasimhan et al. 2018
S8527.E1.L1 A00 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 BT 0 6
S8527.E1.L1 CT 0 2
S8527.E1.L1 A1b1b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 DE 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 D 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a 4 0
S8527.E1.L1 E2b 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 G 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a1 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C1b2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C2e2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C1b2a 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2b 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H3 3 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E2b1a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 D1b1d1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C2e1b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C2e2a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H3a 3 0
S8527.E1.L1 J 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 D1b1d1a 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2a1a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H1b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H1b2 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 H3a1 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 H3b1 5 0
S8527.E1.L1 T/K1b 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2a1b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2b1a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1b1b2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 G1a1a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H1b2a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H3a2b 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2a1b1a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2a2b2b 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H3a2a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 I2a2 1 0 (negative for I2a2, can’t be I2a2a2a!)
S8527.E1.L1 E1a2b1a1a1 3 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1a1a1c1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1b1b2a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 L1a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R/K2b2a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1a1a1c2b 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 H1a1d2c2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1a1a1c2b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 C1b1a1a1a1a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 I2a2a2a 0 1 (can't be I2a2a2a when it is negative for I2a2)
S8527.E1.L1 Q1a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 Q1b 2 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1a1a1c2c3c 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2a2b2a1a1a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 Q1b1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 Q1b2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1a1a1c2c3a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 E1b1a1a1c2c3a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 O1b1a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1c 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 G2a2b2a1a1c1a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 O2a2b1a1b 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 Q1a2a1b2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R2a3a2b2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 O1b1a1a1a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1a1a1b1a3a1 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1a1d 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 O2a2b1a2a1a3b2b2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1a2a1a2 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2a1b1a4a 1 0
S8527.E1.L1 R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a1a1a1a1a 1 0
Click to expand...
Again, let's wait until the paper is FINALIZED and actually officially published and not just a pre-print. We've already been told that they corrected the Y-call errors and the paper is soon to be released.
 
Last edited:
Cyrus said:
I just searched about other haplogroups which have been found in the ancient sites in the northeast of Iran, in Turkmenistan a subclade of I2a2 has been found which dates back to more than 4,000 years ago, I think it can be related to the Germanic migration too.
Haplogroup-I2b.gif
Click to expand...

Well it contradictes your hypothesis because I2a2 clearly comes from Europe, so it would say that Iranian IE came from Europe.
 
spruithean said:
Do you see in the list of tested SNPs “Z2103”? I don’t. It means they didn’t test for it.

R-L23* shown as 8.5% in list you just linked, however again, this study which we already know didn't test more than the SNPs listed didn't test for Z2103. Do you see why this study doesn't really tell us much? We can't see the specific breakdown of the clades. So how much of that L23 (barring those which are indeed L23*) are Z2103? This is the same study that we already debated about R1a because of basal offshoots, this could be remedied if samples could be retested for downstream deeper SNPs. I wish they would do that for the sake of refinement at least. Let's wait for the final publication of the Central and South Asian study before we using it as a reference in discussions just yet.

But go ahead, deny this.
Click to expand...

Exactly this.
 
halfalp said:
Well it contradictes your hypothesis because I2a2 clearly comes from Europe, so it would say that Iranian IE came from Europe.
Click to expand...

Just about I2a2 it is certainly possible that it (P78 branch) came from Europe but before proto-Indo-European era, as you read in Eupedia page about I2: "The P78 branch split into two clades A427 and Y7219 some 5,300 years ago, at the time of the Yamna culture in the Pontic Steppe." and "It might well have originated in the Yamna culture and spread with Proto-Indo-European speakers to Central Europe."
 
Cyrus said:
Just about I2a2 it is certainly possible that it (P78 branch) came from Europe but before proto-Indo-European era, as you read in Eupedia page about I2: "The P78 branch split into two clades A427 and Y7219 some 5,300 years ago, at the time of the Yamna culture in the Pontic Steppe." and "It might well have originated in the Yamna culture and spread with Proto-Indo-European speakers to Central Europe."
Click to expand...

Ok dude, Pontic Steppe is Europe... it's not Iran.
 
halfalp said:
Ok dude, Pontic Steppe is Europe... it's not Iran.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Europe is too large! Anyway whether from Anatolia or Pontic Steppe (both of them are not far from Iran) I believe a branch of proto-Indo-Europeans came to Iran and created proto-Germanic language and from this land they migrated to the north of Europe.
 
Cyrus said:
I'm really interested to know who are these "most linguists"?!! As I said in another thread the names of Gutian kings on the Sumerian King List from the first one Ingesus (compare Ingemar & Ansgisus) to the last one Tirigan (compare Tirfing & Wolfgan) have clearly Germanic origin, we know Ingwi and Tyr were the main Gothic deities.
Click to expand...

According to whom? You, the person who has trouble understanding even what a proto-language is and how sound shifts start, and who thinks that the defining sound rules of a given language family must necessarily have happened all at once right after it split from its ancestral language? Haha, okay. Based on what? On an anachronistic and pseudo-scientific method of "mass comparison" based on the assumption that Germanic words that sound somewhat similar to roots spoken by a Bronze Age peoplemore than 1000 years earlier are certainly cognates? Haha, good one (btw it's Wolfgang, not Wolfgan, and that's a modern Germanic name, the root is Iron Age Proto-Germanic *gangaz, nothing to do with a Bronze Age word *gan). When I say most linguists I refer to the mainstream positions that are summed up in actual books and articles written about the Gutians, and not in fringe "revisionist" texts written by anonymous amateurs on the internet. The two main hypotheses of linguistics scholars about the Gutians is that they either spoke some unknown isolate language or maybe were related to the Tocharians. In any case, you're so confused that you're now comparing Gutians to the Kalash people, who speak their own really ancient branch of Indo-Iranian and have a clear Neolithic Iranian and South Asian-shifted genetic makeup that is totally unlike anything we might find anywhere in Europe, let alone in Germanic-speaking Northern Europe.
 
Cyrus said:
I think you just want to fool me about the relations between these haplogroups, the same site which says Gutians were Tocharian, says a sample of R1b-U106 subclade has been found in Loebanr_IA, 950 BC, in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region. I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then R1b-U106 can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same R1b-U106 can't be related to Iran!!
Click to expand...

in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region >>> You're again putting words in other people's mouths. That's just dishonest, man. What a shame. That finding proves NO SUCH A THING as an ancient migration from Iran to that region. Quit this ridiculous wishfuil thinking. R1b clades have been found in several Bronze Age and Iron Age DNA samples from the Eurasian steppe and Central Asia (Turan), in people who were clearly derived from a mix of Yamnaya-like and CWC-like peoples. And those clades, including descendants of R1a-M417 and R1b-L23, only appeared in South Asia in the LBA/EIA exactly together with Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry. I don't need to fool you, because you're fooling yourself and making a fool of yourself to us every time you add ad hoc conclusions of your own as if they were conclusions of the scientists themselves, and when you interpret the scientific data in a completely nonsense way.

I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then R1b-U106 can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same R1b-U106 can't be related to Iran!! >>. That's illogical, man, probably another consequence of your misconceptions and lack of knowledge about population genetics. R1b-U106 is a much later clade than R1b-Z2103. R1b-Z2103 compares to R1b-L51, not to U106, which is more specific and more recent. YOU are the one claiming anything about who the Gutians were. I didn't say they were Tocharians, I said professional linguists asssociate Gutian language either with an unknown language family (isolate) or perhaps with Tocharian (and that is a pretty fringe hypothesis not accepted by most linguists in fact).

However, if Gutians were Tocharian the presence of R1b-Z2103 would be explained, because R1b-Z103 was found in very high propotion in the Afanasievo culture, offshoot of the Pontic-Caspian EBA peoples. The path of migration is well explained. Now, R1b-U106 has not been found in BA Iran, whereas it has been found in BA Europe. And all U106 that appears in Asia DOES NOT appear in Iran, but rather first in North-Central Asia and later in South-Central Asia/South Asia, and only in the Iron Age. The path of migration is also clear in that case, and it has nothing to do with an Iranian origin.
 
Cyrus said:
I didn't know Europe is too large! Anyway whether from Anatolia or Pontic Steppe (both of them are not far from Iran) I believe a branch of proto-Indo-Europeans came to Iran and created proto-Germanic language and from this land they migrated to the north of Europe.
Click to expand...

Oh my God, so all this time you didn't know that when people are talking about European people of Bronze Age steppe origin they are referring to people who have a lot of ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is obviously in Eastern Europe (modern Ukraine and European Russia)?! That's even worse than your not understanding the kindergarten-like matter of population genetics about its being just impossible that a R1b clade could really be P311 if it is negative to the mutation markers that define the clades upstream of it.

You should really read more and write less.
 
In summary, about R1b, we have already these ancient DNA evidences:

xc6_r1b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 162360 times.

Back
Top