New R1a map

The Bell Beakers are recorded first in Iberia and a bit later in Netherlands. We can figure out two groups of R1b L11 evolving respectively in S116 (Iberia) and U106 (Netherland).
Note that highest variance for R1b U152 is not Central Europe but south eastern France which means that a lots of Italian and Central European U152 came from the West and the south which is really consistent with a Bell Beaker spread. (from the south west to the rest of Europe)

Okay, these are valid points that really speak in favour of a Beaker-Bell spread. I think it would be useful if we knew more about Z196 in this regard.

What about the variance of U106, though?
 
I also seem to have the impression that you do not want to know because you have your pre-fabricated opinion that R1b must be Indo-European.

My "pre-fabricated" opinion? Where did I get it, all "pre-fab" and ready-made like that? When I got into genetic genealogy, the idea was that R1b had been in Western Europe since before the LGM and signified descent from the Cro Magnons.

I don't think you know to which y haplogroups the ancient Iberians belonged because, actually, no one knows that. Very little is known about the Iberian language itself, even if it was one single thing.

Thus far no R1b predating the Middle Ages has been found anywhere in Iberia. That could change tomorrow, but so far there isn't much evidence the Iberians were predominantly R1b.

If one of us holds a "pre-fabricated" notion about the early Indo-Europeans, it isn't me.

. . .
Actually, you're the one who's making a bigger assumption here, since people cannot replace their genes, but they can obviously swap their language . . .

That is silly. People can't replace their genes, nor did I say they could. But human populations can change in genetic configuration and proportions over time. A population can go from belonging predominantly to one y haplogroup to belonging to another.

That much should be obvious.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to deal with the rest of your post. I dislike these quote/counter quote exchanges, and regard most of your arguments as lacking substance. We're probably better off if we just agree to disagree.
 
My "pre-fabricated" opinion? Where did I get it, all "pre-fab" and ready-made like that? When I got into genetic genealogy, the idea was that R1b had been in Western Europe since before the LGM and signified descent from the Cro Magnons.

I don't think you know to which y haplogroups the ancient Iberians belonged because, actually, no one knows that. Very little is known about the Iberian language itself, even if it was one single thing.

Thus far no R1b predating the Middle Ages has been found anywhere in Iberia. That could change tomorrow, but so far there isn't much evidence the Iberians were predominantly R1b.

If one of us holds a "pre-fabricated" notion about the early Indo-Europeans, it isn't me.

I can tell you very simply where I see a pre-fabricated opinion on your side: namely the unwavering association of R1b - and indeed only R1b - with the Celts. I do admit that first glance, such an impression is quite self-evident, but I do not think that this statement bears up to closer scrutiny, and I have elaborated on the reasons why.

I must confess that I am a bit baffled by your claim that there isn't much evidence that the Iberians are associated with R1b, because frankly, I would have expected you to know about R1b-M167, which has it's highest concentrations in Catalonia, (and after that, in the Basque Country), and which in turn is a subclade of R1b-Z196, which in turn - from the looks of it - one of the major subclades of R1b-P312.

Regarding my opinions about the early Indo-Europeans, I would like to reiterate that this comes not from any fixiated, pre-fabricated opinion, but from the fact that I do consider the Kurgan hypothesis the most stable, most sensible hypothesis (thus far), and that all alternatives I have seen thus far (Anatolian hypothesis, Paleolithic continuity, Out-of-India hypothesis, etc.) pose significantly greater problems with them.

That is silly. People can't replace their genes, nor did I say they could. But human populations can change in genetic configuration and proportions over time. A population can go from belonging predominantly to one y haplogroup to belonging to another.

That much should be obvious..

Yes, but my point is that people can also swap languages, there's plenty of examples of that. Take alone how the Celtic-speaking peoples of Continental Europe, in a fairly short period of time, adopted Latin, or how the Turks, who were essentially a minority in Anatolia without a significant genetic impact, pressed their language onto basically the whole of Anatolia. Why are you so adamantly opposed to the very idea that same could have happened in Bronze Age Western Europe?

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to deal with the rest of your post. I dislike these quote/counter quote exchanges, and regard most of your arguments as lacking substance. We're probably better off if we just agree to disagree.

Lacking substance? I'm afraid that all my points of criticism, especially those derived from the field of linguistics, are absolutely valid, and that you can go ahead and look them up if you like. I have partially provided you with the information myself. If however the bolded part above is your less-than-polite way of saying "I do not wish to consider myself beat in this discussion", then I agree we should really leave it at just that.

PS: I would like to reiterate that I do not wish to sound impolite or offending, if this was the case, I would like to apologize for the hitherto harshness of my words.
 
Last edited:
Alright, This will probably have a lot of reasons to be wrong, but I think I might have a way to explain the 5ish% R1a found in France.

I was reading a little bit of history about the Frankish people and their origins, and I came across this link:
(I cant post links, so Google "history of the franks" and it should be the first link)

This Book is written by Gregory of Tours, a man born in 538 and was a historian of his time. What I find interesting is his claim of the origins of the Frankish people:
This is the evidence that the historians who have been named have left us about the Franks, and they have not mentioned kings. Many relate that they came from Pannonia and all dwelt at first on the bank of the Rhine, and then crossing the Rhine they passed into Thuringia, and there among the villages and cities appointed long­haired kings over them from their first or, so to speak, noblest family.

(Book 2 Section 9)

Now, he says that it is believed (by historians of his time) that the Franks came from Pannonia, a place located in the Balkans. This Pannonia could Either mean the Roman province, or the Actual Central Balkan region...But either way they point to a Balkan root of some of the Franks. I might be mistaken, but I believe that I have also read a few theories that R1a in the Balkans is the most diverse in Europe and might be one of it's places of origin (into Europe).

Im far from an expert, but I thought this was interesting seeing as how the Franks Dominated the Area that that small amount of R1a seems to be spread in France.

Thanks!
 
This Book is written by Gregory of Tours, a man born in 538 and was a historian of his time. What I find interesting is his claim of the origins of the Frankish people:
...
Now, he says that it is believed (by historians of his time) that the Franks came from Pannonia, a place located in the Balkans. This Pannonia could Either mean the Roman province, or the Actual Central Balkan region...But either way they point to a Balkan root of some of the Franks.

It's only a legend ! You will also see that it has also been said that the Franks had a Troyan origin (as most of the ancient peoples) !:)
 

I must confess that I am a bit baffled by your claim that there isn't much evidence that the Iberians are associated with R1b, because frankly, I would have expected you to know about R1b-M167, which has it's highest concentrations in Catalonia, (and after that, in the Basque Country), and which in turn is a subclade of R1b-Z196, which in turn - from the looks of it - one of the major subclades of R1b-P312.

R1b M167 is likely to be of non ie origin (Iberian or Basque). However I don't know much about the other S116* found in Iberia, in western Iberia precisely.
Does anyone know if most of S116* in Iberia is Z196? And Which subclades are the most prevalent besides M167?
 
It's only a legend ! You will also see that it has also been said that the Franks had a Troyan origin (as most of the ancient peoples) !:)

Haha! I know it is a unlikely possibility, but if true could explain the R1a spread in France. From what I understand, his work is one of the sources we have come to use to understand what the Franks where like. And when you say Troyan I assume you mean the Central Bulgarian province? And didn't mis type Trojan. :)

Thanks
 
All France was conquered by Germanic tribes: Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Normans... These people had only a minimal genetic impact on the overall population. For example there are only traces of I1 and R1a in what used to be the Visigothic kingdom in south-west France. How could Burgundy have over 5% of R1a when even Baden-Württemberg and Alsace have less than 5% ? Then, let's not confuse the modern region of Burgundy, centered on the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, with the ancient Kingdom of Burgundy, where the actual Burgunds settled, and which encompassed all the land from modern Burgundy all the way down to Provence along the Rhone, as well as the French Alps and Switzerland. If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

The Franks had the biggest impact over Gaul, be it genetic, cultural, linguistic or political; but that is because their homeland had been adjacent to Gaul (around modern Belgium) for several centuries, and they just annexed Gaul to their existing kingdom, while all the other tribes moved in from farther away, in smaller numbers. Yet even the Franks' genetic legacy is barely visible beyond the top north of France. The Parisian region is hardly Germanic. Even Alsace, where a Germanic language is traditionally spoken, barely has 6% of I1 and 5% of R1a (about half of Macedonia, and less I1 than the Celtic strongholds of Wales and Ireland).

Then it is not because East Germany has a lot of R1a today that East Germanic tribes necessarily did too. What many people fail to understand is that when a mass migration happens from one place to another, like the Völkerwanderung of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, people and their genes leave a region and new people move in to fill the vacuum. I believe that a good part of the R1a in East Germany (and of course Poland) today arrived with the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. Germanic people obviously all have/had R1a, but I doubt that ancient tribes like the Goths or Burgunds had over 30% of R1a (10-15% seems more reasonable).

just some thoughts
Eastern Germanic people was settled (and partially formed) in a previous strong 'corded' region, people where Y-R1a seams have been very common so even if other R1a can be arrived with historical Slavs and more recent Polish People... a deeper survey would be necessary...
France for what I know is a very bad sampled country (medical, not anthropological researchs) and Ile-de-France and Clermont-Ferrand are places where we can be sure to find some 'fresh frenchies' or people new arrived from other provinces - for Alsace you posted after a modifications on percentages for I1 from 6% to 10% on your map -
the germanic impact (Saxons, Franks, Burgundians, Alamans, Vikings) on French people seams being stronger than you say in the previous germanic settlements -phenotypically speaking it's evident ( percentages of 'nordid' types) for Normandy, Artois-Flandres-Picardie (North), extreme North-Ile-de-France, Alsace-North-Lorraine and in a less strong way in Lyonnais-Savoie (Burgundians setllements) - more light blond meso-brachycephalic types (maybe a mixture with blond sort of 'borreby's') in the East than in the North as a whole - some regions between them (Somme valley in Picardie, South Île-de-France, Champagne, Bourgogne, highlands Lorraine, Franche-Comté, Bresse, Dauphiné south the Savoie, Forez West Lyonnais) seam have kept more celtic-preceltic and maybe Bell-beakers population and lesser typical germanic "blood" - for I believe, the dark blond dolichocéphalic element (dominant in Germanics) seams have been carried by R-U106, I1 & surely Western R1a... The light blond brachycephalic element, now common in some regions of germanic countries, is maybe of older stock in Central-Northern Europe but my knowledge stops there...
in Normandy and other regions as a whole, the %'s varies according to the proximity of coasts or big rivers, and diminish according to the presence of 'bocages' and hills or mountains (but Savoie, between a burgundian and an alaman impact) - I should guess a 15 to 25% of Germanics demic contributions in these regions, that is more than nothing -
at the opposite side, the lands "invaded" by Goths, Vandales, Alans and others "travelling" germanic (+ iranic) tribes seam having received lesser influence, in FRANCE -
 
I just add that I've prepared something about the presence of Y-R1a (and R1b & I1) in Norway but I see now that the map Maciamo made give a very different distribution of this HG in Norway compared to the survey of Myhre-Dupuy/Stenersen/Lu/Olaisen -
so I wait and maybe shall see?
 
before any answer from Maciamo, I keep on:
In suveys about today Shetland/Orkney and historical-present day Cambria-West-Lancashire, the so considered 'viking' local populations of the Middle Ages in the Isles seam poor enough for Y-I1 and rich for Y-R1a - it could explain the presence of a not to high but honorable % of R1a in Scotland and in Northern Ireland ? it can have been bottlenecks and founder effects on small male sailors populations? curiously the modern population of W-Lancashire (where it's true subsequent mixtures took place with time with other british-saxon populations), Y-I1 is commoner today than in the Middle Ages -
when looking at the distribution in the norwegian survey we see that in W-N-W Norway the present day population is not the less dense for R1a even if weak enough but is the less for I (not precised what kind of I) - Scotland is poor enough for Y-I1 in region where we should be waiting more I1 (Caithness, Shetland, Orkney, N-E Grampians) - for original Celts I don't trust to much in a measurable presence of Y-R1a
about Y-R1a in South Europe we can imagine others sources than the germanic people (or slavic): almost sure some of the first greek (Hellenes) settlers in Western Mediterranee had a higher score for Y-R1a than the present day mean percentage of Greece taken as a whole - and others people of the Eastern Mediterranee possess also some appreciable percentages - Sicily is not too poor, but there, we have the 2 possibilities: ancient Greeks or Near-Easterners or Normands...
 
I take again this thtread : are the hotspots of Y-R1A always in « Auvergne » for France

or are there some changes in the present day distribution ?
This thread gave way to a lot of interpretations concerning other Hgs and SNPs, that is normal -
just some remarks (I hope they will be usefull to reshape some theories):


AUVERGNE is to be precised - the very province of Auvergne was composed of the departments of Cantal and Puy-de-Dôme (with there an industrial town, Clermond-Ferrand, that attracted workers of the whole country and foreign workers (Poles, Italians, not too far ago : Portugueses)) – we can « ethnically » put into this natural and previous cultural region the department of Haute-Loire (Velay province) and some outskirts like extreme south of department Allier, and north of departments of Lozère and Aveyron (comprised in provinces of Haut-Languedoc and Rouergue) :
The adjacent departments of Loire (Forez province) that was settled by Burgund tribes is linked better to the Lyonnais (department Rhône) and phenotypically it is confirmed (or it was confirmed before people leave the countryside for the big towns) -
I think Burgund elites settled more the plains and large valleys thant the most hilly districts, and spite then name of Burgundy given to the region closed to departments of Côte-d'Or and Saône-et-Loire and Yonne, the weight of burgundic demic influence was stronger southernmost, around Lyon I think : some weight in Côte d'Or (Dijon region) but not in more hilly parts as the « pays » Morvan
and the « pays » of Charolais – some influence of Burgunds can be seen too in other eastern parts of France, I suppose, like Franche-Comté, Bresse, Western Savoie, West Dauphiné and along the Rhône valley (always the same boulevards for invasions and colonizations)
*: the town of Bourgoin is in the department Isère, N.Dauphiné, not in Burgundy
– So it would be interesting knowing what kind of « Auvergnats » was tested and from what parts of « Auvergne » they went (about Y-R1a) -
I think Burgunds demic influence was heavy enough (15% or little more of the present day genetic heritage in some districts?) -
for the Netherlands (I think to an other member on this topic), their annexion to Burgundy (Burgoyne) is late enough and at this stage of History (feodal period and latter) there was more family « immobilier » quarrels between noble cousins than ethnies or tribes wars - and frontiers moved faster then than populations did (ahead & back, according to destiny), apart the mercenaries not to numerous -
*: but classical anthropologic surveys of some cemeteries drown by sea in Zeeland and Noord-Brabant dating from the last Middle Ages showed a possible influence of Southern newcomers (where from ? Walloon ? Roman Lorraine ? Further?) : deplaced populations involved in populating ? At what level??? Hard to answer...


This topic has been the occasion for someones to evocate the Bell Beakers and other peoples -
We have more believings for the moment on this question than confirmed facts before ancient DNA will be extracted – So at this stage I do only bets based on general constatations :
I do not think first B.B.s of Central-Western Europe was Y-R1b ( I have even dreamed they was Y-I2a2 and I2a1b, but it is based on no serious ground apart « masculine intuition ») but their cultural impact seams to me having been very strong upon populations of the Alps and North the Alps that was rich for Y-R-U152 -
the first most evident sources for Y-R1a in Western Europe seams the Corded people present from the pre-Calcholithic in Northern Germany but in France it could be arrived either with infliltrations among the Urnfields people (some archeologic traces), or after its participation in the formation of the germanic people (the Easternmost of them upon all) – and I forgot here the presence of Corded people seamingly associated with the Bell Beakers found in Brittain (-2400>>) and with the culture of Wessex and the Armorican culture of tumuli (-2000>>) this last ones can explain some Y-R1a lignages classified as 'celtic' – a Y-R1a of south-eastern european (Greeks?) origin is not absolutely impossible in South – waiting more I think at this point that Y-R1a is not responsible of a total and direct indo-europeanisation of Western Europe
helas ! The DNA studied in the Lichstenstein Cave (Urnfields) is of little interest because these sepultures was those of closed related people : the high presence of Y-I2a2 (ex I2b) is not a surprise in that region - but elaborate theories on the presence of 2 x Y-R1a and 1 x Y-R-U106 is out of worth -
 
Interesting map; pretty good job overall. I agree with many parts of it, and it makes sense in general; I wonder how the areas in western Europe that have higher frequencies got it and through what people. Outside of Europe one would find Iranic peoples and north Indians also having high amounts. But there are some things I'm not so sure about for this version. Is this really the latest most updated one? Was there a high amount of samples that was fairly evenly distributed? One thing I find odd is how heavily you put the whole area of Romania as R1a while the rest of the Slavic Balkans has only low amounts in the 10%+ plus range. I know the northern and eastern parts of Romania have higher amounts, but I've never seen them quite as high as on this map before. Every study I've ever seen for them had them as a population at somewhere between 18-20-22% R1a, at most no more than 24 in one study, but it varies, so I'm just checking. I seriously doubt big regions of the country are in some of these ranges as on this map, and I don't think the vast majority of regions go any higher than 30, let alone the 40%+ range you included the northern part in. Even the official Eupedia page for the frequencies only has it at 18 % overall, but based on this map one would think the average would be over 30% for the whole, which I don't think is true http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml. There is, of course, in reality some "spillover" and transition in the northern border areas to Ukraine, Hungary, Moldova (which is normal), but the difference is fairly noticeable when comparing to most of the country. You made it look like as soon as you hit the border with Romania from the south you suddenly get much higher amounts of R1a, that grow every few miles you go northward, which I doubt, and it's not even like that; certain regions have different amounts. Also, I know especially northern Croatia/Slavonia, as well as Slovenia have considerably higher amounts of R1a than Romania from the heavy Slavic settlement there. It seems this map just accounts for broad , gradually changing patterns kind of emanating out steadily as concentric rings from the core region around northern Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Russia area rather than precise areas of change.

I think the most accurate map I've seen so far is this one http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/R1A_map.jpg, which actually breaks it down by regional subdivisions within countries and takes into account detail between areas. Most maps I've seen also put the northern Greece/Macedonia area as high in R1a yet I didn't see that on the one in this thread. There's parts of Bosnia and Serbia that have higher amounts also.

Also, I wonder how accurate these are as well
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/R1a-map.JPG
http://www.r1a.org/img/map.jpg
http://lukferi2.webs.com/R1a_distribution_Eurasia.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__zYu2MdAxIk/SXE7kt-4uYI/AAAAAAAAB6E/oQ0-ik93i5A/s400/Picture+3.png

Romanians cluster more to the south and in the middle of the Balkan population cluster despite their more northern geographic location on most charts I've seen, which reflects the paleo-Balkanic origin and core basis for their people, with many Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, some Bosnians etc being more north toward cental Euro/West Slav populations.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/images/nature07331-f1.2.jpg

Apparently the Balkans is fairly homogenous in most studies, with Aromanians being among the more distinct groups, but still not that much. http://www.carswell.com.au/wp-content/documents/homogenous-balkan-analysis.pdf

Found these markers, this one relating to Mediterranean ones http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg833/scaled.php?server=833&filename=medb.jpg&res=landing
this for Baltic http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9767/relbalt.jpg

an interesting way of grouping people
http://oi44.tinypic.com/zygj7c.jpg

Anyway, I know R1a isn't necessarily only Slavic, but is often thought to be linked to some kind of Indo-European migration, since other peoples like Iranics have it too; maybe some old Scythian or Sarmatian presence left a bit of an influence. Could be that some of the ancient Daco-Thracian peoples were of this group, or at least part of them, especially the elites. It also depends on the subclades as well though. Was just curious about some of these things.
 
The Austrians fit well within the West Slavic region, encompassing what used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austrians are closer to the Slovenes, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians than to anybody else. Genetically the Austrians are more West Slavic than Germanic.

Austrians are predominantly descendants of germanised Slavs.
 
All France was conquered by Germanic tribes: Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Normans... These people had only a minimal genetic impact on the overall population. For example there are only traces of I1 and R1a in what used to be the Visigothic kingdom in south-west France. How could Burgundy have over 5% of R1a when even Baden-Württemberg and Alsace have less than 5% ? Then, let's not confuse the modern region of Burgundy, centered on the medieval Duchy of Burgundy, with the ancient Kingdom of Burgundy, where the actual Burgunds settled, and which encompassed all the land from modern Burgundy all the way down to Provence along the Rhone, as well as the French Alps and Switzerland. If there is any Germanic haplogroup that is present in surprisingly high density in that region, it is R1b-S21 (R1b-U106), not R1a.

The Franks had the biggest impact over Gaul, be it genetic, cultural, linguistic or political; but that is because their homeland had been adjacent to Gaul (around modern Belgium) for several centuries, and they just annexed Gaul to their existing kingdom, while all the other tribes moved in from farther away, in smaller numbers. Yet even the Franks' genetic legacy is barely visible beyond the top north of France. The Parisian region is hardly Germanic. Even Alsace, where a Germanic language is traditionally spoken, barely has 6% of I1 and 5% of R1a (about half of Macedonia, and less I1 than the Celtic strongholds of Wales and Ireland).

Then it is not because East Germany has a lot of R1a today that East Germanic tribes necessarily did too. What many people fail to understand is that when a mass migration happens from one place to another, like the Völkerwanderung of the late Antiquity and early Middle Ages, people and their genes leave a region and new people move in to fill the vacuum. I believe that a good part of the R1a in East Germany (and of course Poland) today arrived with the Slavs after Germanic tribes left. Germanic people obviously all have/had R1a, but I doubt that ancient tribes like the Goths or Burgunds had over 30% of R1a (10-15% seems more reasonable).

You have just proved that Visigoths were not a Germanic tribe! Now, how can you prove that Slavs entered territory of modern Poland only "after Germanic tribes left"?
 
I am not aware of any fusion between ancient Germanic tribes and Slavic or Iranian tribes, except for the Goths who settled north of the Black Sea.

I see 2 problems in the above: 1) "ancient Germanic tribes" are not Germanic yet, but Celtic; they only became Germanic after the invasion of Goths from Scandinavian peninsula; 2) "the Goths who settled north of the Black Sea" were not Goths in fact, which has been proved genetically.
 
Excellent map although there should have 30-35% over Croatia . Bulgaria should have more 20%, less of the 10%. Macedonia and Greece should be more 15% and not 10% everywhere southern Balkans.
 
Excellent map although there should have 30-35% over Croatia . Bulgaria should have more 20%, less of the 10%. Macedonia and Greece should be more 15% and not 10% everywhere southern Balkans.
Where are you getting those high R1a percentages for Croatia?

According to the latest study R1a in Croatia is 22.1 %

8o7rd3e.png
 
Wow, really? I was always under the assumption that Croatian y-DNA was made up primarily of haplogroup I-M423 ( The Balkans I) at around 40% and haplogroup R1a , indicative of Slavic blood , pushing more towards mid to high thirties ( 30-35%) and not low twenties in percentage....
 
Wow, really? I was always under the assumption that Croatian y-DNA was made up primarily of haplogroup I-M423 ( The Balkans I) at around 40% and haplogroup R1a , indicative of Slavic blood , pushing more towards mid to high thirties ( 30-35%) and not low twenties in percentage....

Well nope, the tab i posted is actually the best study ever done on Croatians just by it's big sample size compared to previous studies.
 

This thread has been viewed 165877 times.

Back
Top