What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

[Cyrus]

It is widely believed that haplogroup I-M253 (I1) relates to the Germanic people, according to a study published in 2015, I-M253 originated between 3,180 and 3,760 years ago in Europe, but what do we know about the ancestral branch of this haplogroup? I think it can certainly help us to know Germanic people migrated from which land.

[spruithean]

New estimates for the time of origin of I1 are roughly 3,170–4,600 YBP with a maximum of 5,070 YBP (at most), this is relatively young compared to I2 and several other European haplogroups. We know that so far the oldest "I1" found in Europe was in the LBKT cultural area in Hungary, however I stress that defining I1 by a singular SNP of M253 is problematic as there are 300 or so defining phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that actually define I1 due to the bottleneck this lineage experienced. What caused this bottleneck? We know that there are several pre-I1 (meaning they carry some phyloequivalent SNPs but M253 was either not tested or the read qualities yielded no results) in Scandinavia prior to the Nordic Bronze Age.
Then the next oldest sample of I1 that appears is in the Early Nordic Bronze Age in Sweden, not much of a surprise. They've also found I1 or more accurately I1-DF29 (I1a) in Longobard graves, an Anglo-Saxon grave in Northern England, various graves throughout Iceland with various subclades of I1 such as I1-F2642, I1-L22, etc as well as I1 found in an Avar period grave in Hungary and I1 in a Conqueror period grave in Hungary (this Hungarian Conqueror individual was 67% East Asian and 33% European with a Northern European haplogroup, further testament to mixing of Germanic people with Steppe migrants into the Carpathians.
Considering I1 is rarely found outside of Europe it is safe to say it is strictly European in origin. Haplogroup I-M170, the upstream parent haplogroup, is extremely old with estimates placing its time of origin anywhere from 31,000 to 35,000 years old. Where it originated is unclear it could be anywhere from the Caucasus, Europe or SW Asia. I2, the sibling clade of I1 has its time of origin anywhere from 28,000-33,000 years ago (obviously it can't originate before I-M170!)
I1 in Europe is likely part of a very early hunter-gatherer people who didn't have very large numbers who eventually made their way into Scandinavia where eventually the population rapidly expanded and diversified into the various subclades we see today with I1-DF29 being the most common. I1 is most likely not an Indo-European haplogroup. The origin of Germanic people is probably due to the fusion of Indo-European groups with these non-Indo-European groups in Northern Europe. We cannot say that if we are to figure out the origin of the Germanic people that we only need to solely look at I1. Germanic speaking Europe contains far more haplogroups and ancient Y-DNA samples show R-U106 as well as other haplogroups were present among Germanic peoples.

[Cyrus]

New estimates for the time of origin of I1 are roughly 3,170–4,600 YBP with a maximum of 5,070 YBP (at most), this is relatively young compared to I2 and several other European haplogroups. We know that so far the oldest "I1" found in Europe was in the LBKT cultural area in Hungary, however I stress that defining I1 by a singular SNP of M253 is problematic as there are 300 or so defining phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that actually define I1 due to the bottleneck this lineage experienced. What caused this bottleneck? We know that there are several pre-I1 (meaning they carry some phyloequivalent SNPs but M253 was either not tested or the read qualities yielded no results) in Scandinavia prior to the Nordic Bronze Age.
Then the next oldest sample of I1 that appears is in the Early Nordic Bronze Age in Sweden, not much of a surprise. They've also found I1 or more accurately I1-DF29 (I1a) in Longobard graves, an Anglo-Saxon grave in Northern England, various graves throughout Iceland with various subclades of I1 such as I1-F2642, I1-L22, etc as well as I1 found in an Avar period grave in Hungary and I1 in a Conqueror period grave in Hungary (this Hungarian Conqueror individual was 67% East Asian and 33% European with a Northern European haplogroup, further testament to mixing of Germanic people with Steppe migrants into the Carpathians.
Considering I1 is rarely found outside of Europe it is safe to say it is strictly European in origin. Haplogroup I-M170, the upstream parent haplogroup, is extremely old with estimates placing its time of origin anywhere from 31,000 to 35,000 years old. Where it originated is unclear it could be anywhere from the Caucasus, Europe or SW Asia. I2, the sibling clade of I1 has its time of origin anywhere from 28,000-33,000 years ago (obviously it can't originate before I-M170!)
I1 in Europe is likely part of a very early hunter-gatherer people who didn't have very large numbers who eventually made their way into Scandinavia where eventually the population rapidly expanded and diversified into the various subclades we see today with I1-DF29 being the most common. I1 is most likely not an Indo-European haplogroup. The origin of Germanic people is probably due to the fusion of Indo-European groups with these non-Indo-European groups in Northern Europe. We cannot say that if we are to figure out the origin of the Germanic people that we only need to solely look at I1. Germanic speaking Europe contains far more haplogroups and ancient Y-DNA samples show R-U106 as well as other haplogroups were present among Germanic peoples.

We know two things:

1. Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European.
2. Haplogroup I-M253 (I1) is a direct descendant of I-M170 (I).

So it doesn't matter how old other descendants or parents are, we know for almost certain that Haplogroup IJ (parent of I-M170) has been found just in Iran and I-M170 has the highest frequency in the Middle East and Caucasus.

As you read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/s...-suggests.html Biologists believe that proto-Indo-Europan dates back to 9,000 years ago in Anatolia, it is certainly possible a group of them migrated to Iran where I-M170 existed and another group migrated to Balkan where I-M438 existed. Those who migrated to Iran created proto-Germanic language and then migrated to the north Europe.

[Ygorcs]

We know two things:

1. Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European.
2. Haplogroup I-M253 (I1) is a direct descendant of I-M170 (I).

So it doesn't matter how old other descendants or parents are, we know for almost certain that Haplogroup IJ (parent of I-M170) has been found just in Iran and I-M170 has the highest frequency in the Middle East and Caucasus.

As you read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/s...-suggests.html Biologists believe that proto-Indo-Europan dates back to 9,000 years ago in Anatolia, it is certainly possible a group of them migrated to Iran where I-M170 existed and another group migrated to Balkan where I-M438 existed. Those who migrated to Iran created proto-Germanic language and then migrated to the north Europe.

Biologists should have no business estimating the date of an ancient language, that's not their expertise, and no wonder this study was so harshly criticized by linguists due to its naive assumptions that linguistic evolution happens exactly like biological evolution.

Where did you take this information that I-M170 has a higher frequency in the Middle East than in Europe? IJ is just way too old for PIE or even pre-PIE. Look for more recent and specific clades instead.

[spruithean]

Oh so basically, everything is Iranian then?
Come on. Haplogroup IJ PREDATES any PIE languages. Haplogroup I2 also descends from I-M170.
Also, your citation here is from 2012. That is quite old compared to what is known now, and it mentions nothing about Haplogroup I.
I'll repeat this ad nauseam, Germanic originated in Northern Europe as did Balto-Slavic this can be seen by the shared words between Finnic and Germanic, etc.

[Cyrus]

Biologists should have no business estimating the date of an ancient language, that's not their expertise, and no wonder this study was so harshly criticized by linguists due to its naive assumptions that linguistic evolution happens exactly like biological evolution.

Where did you take this information that I-M170 has a higher frequency in the Middle East than in Europe? IJ is just way too old for PIE or even pre-PIE. Look for more recent and specific clades instead.

Who are these linguists that you talk about them? Do they still believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis, even after the discovery of Tocharian as a Centum language?!
About haplogroup I-M170, for example look at here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982206011390 "haplogroup I (M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan"

[MOESAN]

@Cyrus:
always the same obsession?
the Y-I1 in cause is surely very recent and knowed a formidable "baby boom" I presume. We can suppose some of close but different subclades developped in two regions: one close to today Germany and Western Baltic, the other South Finland-Eastern Baltic. It deserves a detailed surveys about SNP's. ATW it was not THE proto-Germanic Y-haplo. I suppose the bearers of proto-Germanic were Y-R1b-U106 and an from North Central Europe reached Scandinavia; on the road and in it they coopted finally Y-I1 people and tail-CWC Y-R1a; maybe the Early-Germanic mix was firstable R-U106-I1a and it is only in the final stage of Germanic that thay had incorporated R1a? Uneasy to prove todate with so little Y-haplos for Scandinavia, but with more anDNA of LBA and IA? I think at these ages the mix of DNA in Northern Europe was already well settled and the changes send by new contacts were no more drastic compared to earlier periods.
at the autosomal level, they had absorbed a lot of CWC and BB DNA, more CWC than Celts did, I think.

[Ygorcs]

The high frequency of I1 in Germanic people probably derives from a strong founder event of what was once a very minor and reasonably isolated lineage, given the TMRCA of the haplogroup and its virtual absence of older splits and directly related clades in any other region. I1 split from ~27,500 years ago (yFull) - and, just to put things into perspective, I formed ~31-35 kya, IJ as much as ~44 kya, well before any "recent" West Eurasian genetic structure. Thus we should expect to find related clades in West Asia (not the same much more recent lineage that boomed in North Europ). Besides, it's more probable, considering the patterns observed in other PIE languages, that the arrival of a PIE-derived language in Germanic populations was mediated mainly by R1b-P312, U106 in particular, and absorbed by other lineages along the expansion of IE languages. It's not like I1 is the one and only Germanic haplogroup. Even where it's found in highest frequency it's rivaled by R1b and R1a (Scandinavia).

[Ygorcs]

Who are these linguists that you talk about them? Do they still believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis, even after the discovery of Tocharian as a Centum language?!
About haplogroup I-M170, for example look at here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982206011390 "haplogroup I (M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan"

Almost all mainstream linguists. The use of Bayesian biological methods to infer the splits of yielded results that were very criticized by countless linguists. The methodology itself had many flaws caused by incorrect premises and assumptions that do not fit the evolution of languages as they do to biological processes. Some of the results are clearly suspicious even for amateurs who understand a modicum of historical linguistics and the history of attested languages. Sorry, but I won't make that research for you. I can just inform you that that highly PR-ed study is very controversial and not well accepted by most professional linguists, whether they "believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis" or not.

By the way, Tocharian being Centum language is no recent discovery, and it has no bearing at all in the Kurgan hypothesis, because Tocharian is supposed to derive from an early branching off from the Pontic-Caspian LCA/EBA cultures, probably Afanasievo, so it's believed to date from before the gradual split of the PIE dialect continuum led to satem languages.

[Ygorcs]

Who are these linguists that you talk about them? Do they still believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis, even after the discovery of Tocharian as a Centum language?!
About haplogroup I-M170, for example look at here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982206011390 "haplogroup I (M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan"

What specific (and preferably recent) subclades? I1, what subclases of I1? Are they the same found in highest frequency in Germmanic people? I haplogroup alone is more than 20,000 years old, it's like saying that Greeks are Black Africans because E1b1b is found in high frequency in many parts of East Africa. Come on... I think you're a bit too obsessed about one only topic, or at least I have been unlucky to only find messages from you about this supposed Germanic-Iran connection 100% of the times (of course that must have nothing to do with the fact you're Iranian).

[Cyrus]

@Cyrus:
always the same obsession?
the Y-I1 in cause is surely very recent and knowed a formidable "baby boom" I presume. We can suppose some of close but different subclades developped in two regions: one close to today Germany and Western Baltic, the other South Finland-Eastern Baltic. It deserves a detailed surveys about SNP's. ATW it was not THE proto-Germanic Y-haplo. I suppose the bearers of proto-Germanic were Y-R1b-U106 and an from North Central Europe reached Scandinavia; on the road and in it they coopted finally Y-I1 people and tail-CWC Y-R1a; maybe the Early-Germanic mix was firstable R-U106-I1a and it is only in the final stage of Germanic that thay had incorporated R1a? Uneasy to prove todate with so little Y-haplos for Scandinavia, but with more anDNA of LBA and IA? I think at these ages the mix of DNA in Northern Europe was already well settled and the changes send by new contacts were no more drastic compared to earlier periods.
at the autosomal level, they had absorbed a lot of CWC and BB DNA, more CWC than Celts did, I think.

Ok, lets talk about R1b-U106, as you probably know, my main topic of research is about the ancient land of Guti and Suedin (modern Luristan) in the west of Iran.

Primitive Civilizations, page 265:


As you read about modern Lurs: "Considering their NRY variation, the Lurs are distinguished from other Iranian groups by their relatively elevated frequency of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b (specifically, of subclade R1b1a2a)"

Now look at Eupedia page about R1b: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1b_Y-DNA.shtml



As you see R1b-U106 is a subclade of haplogroup R1b1a2a1a and it happened after the Middle Bronze Age.

Look at my post in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...onology)/page2

There are many archaeological evidences which show there was a migration from the west of Iran (modern Luristan) to the north of Europe in the late Nordic Bronze Age (between 800 BC and 500 BC), just look at the works of Scandinavian archaeologists, for example look at the English summary of this book by Birger Nerman: The Late Bronze Age: http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/handle/raa/1709

"During the late Bronze Age a fairly rapid development takes place, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the Mälar-Hjälmar district and in Gotland; the finds are still most numerous, however, in the soutliernmost parts of the Scandinavian cultural area. Each of the first-mentioned localities creates its own special types, but at the same time there is evidence of a combined Central Sweden-Gotland cultural area. ... Influences are observable from Luristan in west Persia, e. g. the bronze bowl in Fig. 21 from Västmanland from per. 5 (cf. Fig. 22)."

You can read more about it in the works of Dr. T. J. Arne who says this large amount of influences is impossible without a migration from Luristan: http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/handle/raa/1044



These similarties have been mentioned by several other archaeologists and artists too, for example English artist Lawrence Gowing in A History of art, says "In Sweden and Denmark human and animal figures appear as knife-handles and heads of pins, or as scepter-ornaments, some of them having an odd likeness to the bronzes from Luristan (Persia)".

As you read in Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/article...ssions-to-iran "The Luristan Bronze In Sweden there was an early debate on the similarity of bronzes or perhaps even direct contact between Scandinavia and Iran."

[Ygorcs]

Well, R1b1a2a can technically refer both to R1b1a2a1a (the ancestor of U106 and others) and also R1b1a2a2 a.k.a Z2103, which is famously found in high frequencies in the highlands of East Anatolia (Armenian Highlands), South Caucasus and the Zagros, roughly in and around Kurdistan. Are you really sure that higher than average proportion of R1b1a2a refers to a sizeable proportion of U106 or its immediate ancestor L11, and not to Z2103, which is a very plausible hypothesis given that Luristan neighbors those hotspots of Z2103? Conversely U106 hasn't been found in significant proportions in that region. Look the maps of Eupedia, compre the one for Z2103 and the one for U106:



Also, U106 and P312 certainly date to the Middle Bronze Age, that is, some time before ~1500 B.C., and not as late as the first millennium B.C. Therefore we should expect to find non-negligible U106 in Iran if it really came from there, it certainly did not come from Iran and only acquired the U106 defining mutations in North Europe.

What do more recent archaeological findings and research tell us about those supposed connections? Is there more updated research confirming that hypothesis? The Encyclopedia Iranica talks about an "early debate" about those connections. What happened later? The scientific hypothesis you linked date to 1934 and 1954. Aren't there more recent works supporting your position?

[Cyrus]

What do more recent archaeological findings and research tell us about those supposed connections? Is there more updated research confirming that hypothesis? The Encyclopedia Iranica talks about an "early debate" about those connections. What happened later? The scientific hypothesis you linked date to 1934 and 1954. Aren't there more recent works supporting your position?

What happened after 1934, in fact in 1935, is the establishment of the Nuremberg Laws (racial purity laws), we see all researches about the Germanic migration from Luristan were stopped and researchers focused on just the racial purity of the Germanic people. In fact a pro-Semitic hypothesis was changed to an anti-Semitic hypothesis. We can still see this type of ultra-nationalism in the Germanic lands, they actually don't want to research about these issues, I sent an email to one of these Germanologists and asked about the history of Germanic culture before 800 BC and mentioned my own hypothesis and he replied "I don't know and I don't want know!"

[Cyrus]

Well, R1b1a2a can technically refer both to R1b1a2a1a (the ancestor of U106 and others) and also R1b1a2a2 a.k.a Z2103, which is famously found in high frequencies in the highlands of East Anatolia (Armenian Highlands), South Caucasus and the Zagros, roughly in and around Kurdistan. Are you really sure that higher than average proportion of R1b1a2a refers to a sizeable proportion of U106 or its immediate ancestor L11, and not to Z2103, which is a very plausible hypothesis given that Luristan neighbors those hotspots of Z2103? Conversely U106 hasn't been found in significant proportions in that region. Look the maps of Eupedia, compre the one for Z2103 and the one for U106:



Also, U106 and P312 certainly date to the Middle Bronze Age, that is, some time before ~1500 B.C., and not as late as the first millennium B.C. Therefore we should expect to find non-negligible U106 in Iran if it really came from there, it certainly did not come from Iran and only acquired the U106 defining mutations in North Europe.

Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.

Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?

[hrvclv]

Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.

Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?

Nobody "spoke Germanic" in the 6th millenium BC.
Germanic didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
Germanic people didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
Those people and their language came to existence when Bell Beaker folks (R1b) mixed with Corded Ware people (R1a) and with a local substrate (I1) in the north of Europe some time after 2500 BC. Given the time it took for the ensuing Germanic culture to become distinct as such, you can't refer to anything Germanic before, probably, the first millenium BC.

Nobody spoke French in the 6th millenium BC, nor even Latin, nor Persian. The French didn't exist yet, nor did the Romans, the Celts, the Scythians, the Persians...

I've been wondering for some time whether you really have a problem with chronology, ot are just t-rolling this forum.

[Cyrus]

Nobody "spoke Germanic" in the 6th millenium BC.
Germanic didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
Germanic people didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
Those people and their language came to existence when Bell Beaker folks (R1b) mixed with Corded Ware people (R1a) and with a local substrate (I1) in the north of Europe some time after 2500 BC. Given the time it took for the ensuing Germanic culture to become distinct as such, you can't refer to anything Germanic before, probably, the first millenium BC.
Nobody spoke French in the 6th millenium BC, nor even Latin, nor Persian. The French didn't exist yet, nor did the Romans, the Celts, the Scythians, the Persians...
I've been wondering for some time whether you really have a problem with chronology, ot are just t-rolling this forum.

Haplogroups don't relate to languages, Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, it is impossible that the Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European language happened after the 6th millennium BC because proto-IE became extinct before this date.
Persian which was spoken in the 1st millennium BC or earlier was a southwestern Iranian, centuries before Persian, all southwestern Iranian languages were the same, and centuries before it, all western languages were them, in the 4th millennium BC Iranian was a single language, and the 6th millennium BC Indo-Iranian, like Germanic, existed as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, if you say Germanic is an Indo-Iranian or Hellenic language, then it can be possible that it didn't exist in the 6th millennium BC but we can't talk about Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European and consider it as a young language.

[spruithean]

Cyrus, we actually have haplogroup evidence from these cultural areas that hrvclv mentions. We have samples of Bell Beaker Y-DNA (majority R1b), Corded Ware Y-DNA (R1a), etc. Haplogroups don't necessarily relate to languages nor ethnicities, but a haplogroups predominance within certain ethno-linguistic areas can say a lot about how that haplogroup moved throughout an area.

I'm all for someone proving that the new status quo is incorrect, but it needs to be done with sources and data that is recent and well supported by documented evidence.

Now in regards to Iranian influences on the Germanic languages: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro..._Germanic-.htm

From East Iranian, probably through steppe-related contacts, words were adopted into late Proto-Germanic. Examples include:

• Gmc. *keppǭ, skēpą ‘sheep’ ~ Pers. čapiš ‘yearling kid’,
  
• Gmc. *kurtilaz ‘tunic’ ~ Ossetian kwəræt ‘shirt’.
  
• Gmc. *kutą ‘cottage’~ Pers- kad ‘house’
  
• Gmc. *paidō ‘cloak’ ~ Thrac. baítē ‘coat made of pelt’.
  
• Gmc. *paϑaz ‘path’ ~ Av. pantā, gen. pathō.
  
• Gmc. *u̯urstu̯a ‘work’ ~ Av. vərəštuua.
  - A Song of Sheep and Horses by Carlos Quiles

Note he mentions Steppe-related contacts, these would be the nomadic Iranic people such as Sarmatians, Scythians, etc. while this shows there was some contact with Iranian languages is does not consider the rather significant influences on proto-Germanic from Finnic and Sami.

Finno-Samic influence: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_11_1
Sami influence: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_11_2
Celtic and Iranian influence: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_11_3

And finally, this section on Germanic culture and haplogroups from yet another work of Carlos Quiles: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_10_6_5 - worth the read. You may also find in his work here entire sections dedicated to Tocharians, Indo-Iranians and various others. It is all worth a read as it takes into account genetic evidence, linguistic evidence and archaeological evidence. Combining these fields provides a wider picture that isn't as narrow as basing theories off of linguistic coincidences.

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, we actually have haplogroup evidence from these cultural areas that hrvclv mentions. We have samples of Bell Beaker Y-DNA (majority R1b), Corded Ware Y-DNA (R1a), etc. Haplogroups don't necessarily relate to languages nor ethnicities, but a haplogroups predominance within certain ethno-linguistic areas can say a lot about how that haplogroup moved throughout an area.

As you read about Lurs: "Together with its other clades, the R1 group comprises the single most common haplogroup among the Lurs", in fact they are also a R1a-R1b hybrid, but Indo-Iranian R1a (R1a-Z93 or R1a1a1b2) is zero among the Lurs, they have just R1a1a.

I think R1a1a was the main haplogroup of the eastern neighbors of Gutians, namely Kassites, we see some elements of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic cultures (probably the original Satem culture) in the Kassite culture, of course their orginal name Kashubu is similar to the Kashubs of Poland. Look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassite_deities (Slavic word for god is also bog)

More about this haplogroup: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1a_Y-DNA.shtml

[Megalophias]

As you read about Lurs: "Together with its other clades, the R1 group comprises the single most common haplogroup among the Lurs", in fact they are also a R1a-R1b hybrid, but Indo-Iranian R1a (R1a-Z93 or R1a1a1b2) is zero among the Lurs, they have just R1a1a.

Where did you get the information about R1a subclades in Lurs? Sounds interesting.

[Cyrus]

Where did you get the information about R1a subclades in Lurs? Sounds interesting.

It is not just Lurs but other Iranian people too, this is the source of wiki page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854

I strongly believe that Indo-Iranian migration to Iran is a big lie, you can't find R1a-Z93 or R1a-Z94 in even low frequency among the people of Iran except those ones who have migrated from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and etc in the recent centuries. Iranian culture in Iran just relates to Cimmerians who came from the southeast of Europe and haplogroup R1b-Z2103.

[Megalophias]

That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.

[Cyrus]

That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.

As you read it says: "All the R1a Y chromosomes belong to the M198* paragroup with frequencies ranging from 0% to 25%. Indeed neither the “European” M458 nor the “Pakistani” M434 have been observed in our samples."

[Megalophias]

What does that have to do with Z93?

[Cyrus]

What does that have to do with Z93?

It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.

[Megalophias]

It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.

You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.