Y-DNA haplogroups of ancient civilizations

[Taranis]

There was no time for your U152=Indo-European scenario. Basque R1b1b2 is almost exclusively P312+, and U152 is P312+. The difference in age between U152 and the other P312+ clades (and, in fact, between all of them and P312 itself) is negligible. In fact, the difference in ages of all the divisions of P310+ (which includes U106 and its clades, as well) is negligible.

I disagree, I would think that there are substantial difference in age there, and I would also like to point out how the Basques predominantly have rather unique subclades of P312+ which are basically found nowhere outside of the Basque-speaking (or, by extension in Antiquity, formerly Aquitanian-speaking) areas. I should ask then, in what time frame do you think did P312+ and it's subclades appear then?

So, chances are, whatever Basque R1b1b2 was originally, U152 was originally, as well. Either Maciamo is right, and R1b1b2 as a whole was the vector of Indo-European in Western Europe, or R1b1b2, including U152, whether Neolithic or otherwise, was non-Indo-European.

As I said, I was under the impression (from the dates given for various markers that P312+ occured well in the Neolithic, and that there was a significant timespan until the various subclades appeared.

I must say that while Maciamo's hypothesis is very elegant, however, I have the problem with it that it doesn't explain the abundance of clearly non-IE languages in Iberia in the Antiquity.

There is just no way U152 spread Indo-European languages to Western Europe.

Why not? I should explain, when I say in this context "Western Europe" I mean the Atlantic region (British Isles, Gaul, Iberia).

I don't think that is certain at all. First, Hallstatt and La Tene are two different things. One can say that Hallstatt influenced La Tene, but they are not the same thing.

Last time I checked, La-Tene evolved out of Halstatt. Or, in other words, La-Tene is the iron age successor of Halstatt. However, I admit I may be wrong about that.

Equating U152 with Hallstatt/La Tene Celts is a theory, mostly the work of a single enthusiast. It could be right, but it could be wrong, as well. More than one person has pointed out that U152 corresponds fairly well with the expansion of Alemannic German tribes. Others have seen it as primarily Italic, since it seems to be the most frequent R1b1b2 clade in Italy, and not just in Northern Italy, but all over the Italian peninsula.

Well, I find the reasoning very sound based on a few issues (I must admit that I do not know of the work of said single enthusiast, I came up with this idea myself):

First off, the high occurence of it in all regions previously inhabited by Celts (in particular, but not exclusively, P-speaking Celts).

As for U152 corresponding with the Alemannic tribes, this makes no sense at all, because it fails to explain the occurence of U152 in Belgium and the British Isles (notably Ireland!). The only reasonable explanation I see for the presence of U152 in Ireland is that it is associated with Celts.

I should make it very clear that the marker is merely associated with Halstatt/La-Tene, and not exclusive to them. It is likely that the marker appeared long before (ie, the Celtic/Italic split had not occured yet). However, I must admit that it is also entirely possible that we get "false signals" in the entire circum-alpine region as a result of the Roman period. The high occurence of U152 in Italy could be explained by both the presence of the Cisalpine Gauls, and by the fact that the Italics themselves had their own share of U152.

 

[LeBrok]

Welcome to Eupedia Taranis. Glad we have one more thinker here.
Unfortunately I'm lacking the info on this subject for a nice discussion.

 

[Taranis]

Welcome to Eupedia Taranis. Glad we have one more thinker here.

Thank you!

Unfortunately I'm lacking the info on this subject for a nice discussion.

Well, I kind of hope that other board members will comment on it later. In fact, from what reception I got thus far, I kind of expect that my hypothesis will be torn to shreds now... :innocent:

 

[Segia]

Hello, Taranis!

What spoke the first R1b carriers?
-Nobody knows.

It is possible to exist since the prehistory men carrying the same hg and speaking different -unrelated or distant related- languages?
-Yes, obviously.

Has been the current Basque Country always basque speaking?
-No, at least totally. In fact, most of the prerroman toponymia of the spanish Basque Country seems to be overwhelming IE. This doesn't implies that basque wasn't already spoken, but tell us that other languages are better attested. In Aquitania -France- "basque" presence seems to be older.

Are basque and iberian related?
-Yes, but it's hard to establish at wich degree. The former is a living language and the latter is a dead one, a "corpus language" extinct possibly 1600 y.a. Numerals are very similar, even for current basque.

What says archaelogy about this...?
-Surprisingly, the attested presence of non IE languages in Spain coincide "grosso modo" with the expansion of Urnenfelder Kultur (primary fields, 1st ex. -Ebro Valley-, and secondary fields 2nd. ex. -from Aquitania-) This doesn't mean that we should link a cultural phenomenon to a linguistic one, but it's curious. If both phenomena were related, we should transfer the problem behind the Pyrennes. The absence of writing records in central Europe make this business really complicated. Perhaps some toponyms...

And tartessian?
-It presents transcription problems, but the last studies -Koch and Wodko- point to be an IE paraceltic language (the oldest "native" language attested in Iberia). We were discussing on it some months ago. Take a sight at this link about tartessian (many linguists don't share this view, but...):

http://ifc.dpz.es/recursos/publicaciones/29/54/26koch.pdf

 

[Taranis]

Hello, Taranis!

What spoke the first R1b carriers?
-Nobody knows.

Well, I wasn't talking about R1b as a whole here. I mean, all those ancient (ie, Central Asian M-73 and Middle Eastern/African V-88) clades of R1b, that's an entirely different story. But yeah, we obviously do not know what language they spoke.

It is possible to exist since the prehistory men carrying the same hg and speaking different -unrelated or distant related- languages?
-Yes, obviously.

Has been the current Basque Country always basque speaking?
-No, at least totally. In fact, most of the prerroman toponymia of the spanish Basque Country seems to be overwhelming IE. This doesn't implies that basque wasn't already spoken, but tell us that other languages are better attested. In Aquitania -France- "basque" presence seems to be older.

Oh, that is interesting!

So from that point of view, it is at least conceivable that the Basques may have "pulled a Hungary" and absorbed a population of largely Celtic stock. In that case the idea that R1b is indeed associated with the Indo-Europeans (well, their western expansion into Atlantic Europe), and this would explain why Haplogroup I, which, for all purposes should be their associated Haplogroup, is so exceedingly rare with the Basques.

Are basque and iberian related?
-Yes, but it's hard to establish at wich degree. The former is a living language and the latter is a dead one, a "corpus language" extinct possibly 1600 y.a. Numerals are very similar, even for current basque.

Well, it would make things "easier" if they were related.

What says archaelogy about this...?
-Surprisingly, the attested presence of non IE languages in Spain coincide "grosso modo" with the expansion of Urnenfelder Kultur (primary fields, 1st ex. -Ebro Valley-, and secondary fields 2nd. ex. -from Aquitania-) This doesn't mean that we should link a cultural phenomenon to a linguistic one, but it's curious. If both phenomena were related, we should transfer the problem behind the Pyrennes. The absence of writing records in central Europe make this business really complicated. Perhaps some toponyms...

Actually, as you mention Urnfield, I saw a paper on a Urnfield locality (Lichtenstein cave in Lower Saxony, Germany, NOT in Liechtenstein ), and they turned up a very peculiar result of Y-DNA: apparently 12 were Haplogroup I2b2, two were R1a, and one was R1b (specificially the U-106 subclade). Now, I do not know how representative that is of the Urnfield culture (probably not very), and while the presence of R1a and of R1b is to be expected, the dominance of I2b2 there is something very surprising.

And tartessian?
-It presents transcription problems, but the last studies -Koch and Wodko- point to be an IE paraceltic language (the oldest "native" language attested in Iberia). We were discussing on it some months ago. Take a sight at this link about tartessian (many linguists don't share this view, but...):

Well, I have seen the paper, too, and I must say (although I'm not a linguist), I am not convinced, either. At least, the evidence that Koch bring is not unambiguous, and also, there is problems with his methodology.
The most drastic effect if Tartessian was indeed a Celtic (or "Para-Celtic", as you call it) language is that this would mean that the Atlantic Bronze Age was indeed a Celtic culture, and this potentially moves the origin of Celtic languages from Alpine Europe to the Atlantic region. Of course, this runs deeper: what does this say about the earlier Beaker culture, and about the relationship of the Beaker culture to the Corded Ware culture? And how do the much later Halstatt/La-Tene cultures (the latter was undoubtably Celtic, but equally undoubtably originated outside of the Atlantic region) fit into all this?

EDIT: I have been thinking a bit further. Of course, there is the issue with the P/Q-Celtic language split, and it would sort of make more sense if Q-Celtic developed in the Atlantic region (since it's only attested in the Atlantic region!!!) and for P-Celtic to originate in the Alpine region. That just might work. But the question for me remains where and when the (common ancestral) Proto-Celtic was spoken... probably there's no way to know for certain.

 

[rms2]

There is very little U152 in the predominantly Celtic regions of the British Isles. What there is in Ireland (very little) is associated primarily with people with English surnames. There is almost no U152 that I know of among the old Gaelic, Catholic population of Ireland. There is also very very little U152 in Wales, Scotland, and the western sections of England.

The age difference between the various subdivisions of P310 is negligible, and between the various subclades of P312 (and between them and P312 itself) it is practically nil. So the idea that U152 is something radically different from the rest of P312, the Indo-European element as opposed to the non-Indo-European, is highly unlikely. Whatever U152 is, it is inextricably bound up with whatever the rest of P310 (and especially P312) is. The fact that there is little difference in age between the various divisions of P310 is reflected in the fact that all of them carry the WAMH and are difficult to sort from haplotypes. Distinctive clusters, most of them relatively young, do appear, but the great bulk of P310 haplotypes, and especially P312 haplotypes, is extremely difficult to parse. In other words, it is very hard to tell a U152 haplotype from an L21 haplotype from an SRY2627 haplotype, etc. The reason for that is that none of those clades has had much time to become very different from its cousins.

U152 is not especially predominant in Belgium. It is possible that U152 could be Alemannic without being exclusively Alemannic. It fits the distribution of Alemannic Germans as well if not better than it does that of so-called "Hallstatt and La Tene" Celts. A recent study of R1b1b2 in France undertaken by the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain found that U152 was the most frequent subclade in only one region of France: Alsace.

While I think it probable that U152 was involved in the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures, I don't think either of them was exclusively U152.

And there is no evidence or any real reason to believe that carriers of U152 spread Indo-European to Atlantic Europe. In fact, some pretty prominent experts, including Dr. John Koch and Dr. Barry Cunliffe, have hypothesized that Celtic spread from the Atlantic zone eastward:

http://tinyurl.com/2wezmo8

 

[Taranis]

There is very little U152 in the predominantly Celtic regions of the British Isles. What there is in Ireland (very little) is associated primarily with people with English surnames. There is almost no U152 that I know of among the old Gaelic, Catholic population of Ireland. There is also very very little U152 in Wales, Scotland, and the western sections of England.

The age difference between the various subdivisions of P310 is negligible, and between the various subclades of P312 (and between them and P312 itself) it is practically nil. So the idea that U152 is something radically different from the rest of P312, the Indo-European element as opposed to the non-Indo-European, is highly unlikely. Whatever U152 is, it is inextricably bound up with whatever the rest of P310 (and especially P312) is.

U152 is not especially predominant in Belgium. It is possible that U152 could be Alemannic without being exclusively Alemannic. It fits the distribution of Alemannic Germans as well if not better than it does that of so-called "Hallstatt and La Tene" Celts. A recent study of R1b1b2 in France undertaken by the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain found that U152 was the most frequent subclade in only one region of France: Alsace.

While I think it probable that U152 was involved in the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures, I don't think either of them was exclusively U152.

And there is no evidence or any real reason to believe that carriers of U152 spread Indo-European to Atlantic Europe. In fact, some pretty prominent experts, including Dr. John Koch and Dr. Barry Cunliffe, have hypothesized that Celtic spread from the Atlantic zone eastward:

Well, there goes that idea... I stand corrected. And, well, I suspect the figures that I looked at were grossly outdated. :ashamed2:

And at this point I would re-iterate that a map/table of the various subclades of R1b would be highly appreciated by me.

The problem that I have with Celtic originating in the Atlantic region is this: how did it get there in the first place? Indo-European obviously came to Europe from the East, and I don't quite see how the Celts suddenly pop up in the Atlantic region and spread in the opposite direction. That makes no sense to me.

 

[rms2]

Well, there goes that idea... I stand corrected. And, well, I suspect the figures that I looked at were grossly outdated. :ashamed2:

And at this point I would re-iterate that a map/table of the various subclades of R1b would be highly appreciated by me.

The problem that I have with Celtic originating in the Atlantic region is this: how did it get there in the first place? Indo-European obviously came to Europe from the East, and I don't quite see how the Celts suddenly pop up in the Atlantic region and spread in the opposite direction. That makes no sense to me.

That is a good question.

Jean Manco, in her The Peopling of Europe, theorizes that what she calls "the Stelae People" brought Indo-European to the Iberian Peninsula by sea from the Pontic-Caspian region.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Well, there goes that idea... I stand corrected. And, well, I suspect the figures that I looked at were grossly outdated. :ashamed2:
And at this point I would re-iterate that a map/table of the various subclades of R1b would be highly appreciated by me.
The problem that I have with Celtic originating in the Atlantic region is this: how did it get there in the first place? Indo-European obviously came to Europe from the East, and I don't quite see how the Celts suddenly pop up in the Atlantic region and spread in the opposite direction. That makes no sense to me.

It should be said that "Celticity" / "Celtic" is primarily a cultural construct. However, people originating from ancient Celtic lands do share, to some degree, certain genetic markers. Population geneticists are uncovering new affinities within the Atlantic Facade regularly.

Also, a growing number of philologists and linguists believe Tartessian, once spoken in southern Portugal and SW Spain, is the first Celtic language, pre-dating by more than 500 years anything confirmed in central Europe. Reference the latest research by Koch, Cunliffe and others who are participating in the Celtic from the South-west project, sponsored by the University of Wales (Institute for Celtic Studies). A new segment will be published in August of this year.

 

[Aristander]

Very interesting discussion so far. I am anxious to see the study on the Tartessian language when it is published next month. I have always thought that the Tartessians probably were migrants from North Africa.

 

[Taranis]

It should be said that "Celticity" / "Celtic" is primarily a cultural construct. However, people originating from ancient Celtic lands do share, to some degree, certain genetic markers. Population geneticists are uncovering new affinities within the Atlantic Facade regularly.

Depends. Wether talk about the Celtic languages, or about material cultures usually attributed to speakers of said languages. The main brawl that I have with the idea that Celtic originated in the Atlantic Europe is that it is totally out of place (and time!) of the phylogeny of the Indo-European languages.

Also, a growing number of philologists and linguists believe Tartessian, once spoken in southern Portugal and SW Spain, is the first Celtic language, pre-dating by more than 500 years anything confirmed in central Europe. Reference the latest research by Koch, Cunliffe and others who are participating in the Celtic from the South-west project, sponsored by the University of Wales (Institute for Celtic Studies). A new segment will be published in August of this year.

I am not a linguist (but I talked with one ), but as far I understand it, there's a number of problems associated with Koch's work. The main issue is that his primary set of data are personal names.

This goes deeper, because personal name etymologies often will tell you more about the individual making them than the name itself, since they almost never come with glosses, so, finding an etymology becomes a game where you essentially seaching for words in your language that sound alike. Given a sufficiently large dictionary and a willingness to play fast and freely between sounds, it's very easy to do this. In some case you have purported "Celtic" origins for words for which it is not even sure if they even have demonstrated Indo-European derivations.

Secondly, even if the names indeed have Celtic etymologies doesn't mean that Tartessian actually was a Celtic language. We know that there were Celts in Iberia, but we cannot automatically assume that everybody with a Celtic-sounding name really spoke Celtic. This is why most linguists stick away from personal name etymologies.

Thirdly, and as far as I understand it, this is something of a "cardinal sin" in terms of linguistics, is that Koch makes no effort to demonstrate how the sounds of Tartessian are supposed to correspond to sounds in Celtiberian. This is pretty futile, because you run under the assumption that any sound can correspond to any other sound, which is not how languages work. And, as far as I understand, this is something that linguists haven't been practicing since the days of Jacob Grimm.

The bottom line is, it is possible that Koch is right, but he hasn't actually proven anything other than the words he has taken out of context from two languages that sometimes sound somewhat alike.

So yes, I guess we will have to wait for more papers on the issue.

Very interesting discussion so far. I am anxious to see the study on the Tartessian language when it is published next month. I have always thought that the Tartessians probably were migrants from North Africa.

Well, I must admit that the idea that Tartessian was actually an Afro-Asiatic language is tempting, however, one could argue that the evidence for that is probably just as spurious as the evidence that is was Celtic. The only thing where everybody seems to agree on is that Tartessian was not related with Iberian (and by extension Basque/Aquitanian). Also, it should be noted the Tartessian script was derived from the Phoenician one, and the Phoenicians did apparently have intense trade with the Tartessians.
But alas, in the end we just don't know...

 

[gnolen]

This discussion popped up in my e-mail. I no longer argue the matter on forums, boards, and lists.

I will simply ask that you Google the following since I am not being allowed to post a URL to my research: Of the Nolans (Nola): Origins of the Irish and Scottish.

Origins of the Irish and Scottish: Corca Luighe (Corca Laoidhe) and Dál Riada (Dál Riata)

R-U152 (R1b1b2a1b4) (R1b1b2a1b7) (R1b1b2a2g) (R1b1b2h) (R1b1c10) - DYS #385a and 385b at 11 and 17: A Corca Luighe (Corca Laoidhe) Ossory (Osraighe) and Dál Riada (Dál Riata) Uladh Haplotype in Co. Donegal, Ulster, Ireland, 1600s.

Thanks, this is my first and last post on this forum. rms moderates the R1b1b2 forum at World Families network. R-L21 dominates Ireland and Great Britain, but R-U152 and other sub-clades do exist, also.

 

[rms2]

No one is saying there is no U152 in the British Isles, but it is true there is very little of it in Ireland, and what is there seems to be connected mostly to people with English surnames. That is not to say there are no exceptions, but they are few.

There are y haplogroups in Ireland other than R-L21, but they are in the minority, and if one takes a look at the old Gaelic, Catholic surnames, he will find they are all well represented in the R-L21 category.

I am not trying to make any big, grandiose claims here. My own y-line is not Irish, at least as far as I know. The evidence in my case points to the West Midlands of England or perhaps to Wales (although I have Irish ancestry on a few other lines).

I'm just stating facts which anyone is free to verify by taking a look around at the various y-dna projects.

 

[Taranis]

No one is saying there is no U152 in the British Isles, but it is true there is very little of it in Ireland, and what is there seems to be connected mostly to people with English surnames. That is not to say there are no exceptions, but they are few.

There are y haplogroups in Ireland other than R-L21, but they are in the minority, and if one takes a look at the old Gaelic, Catholic surnames, he will find they are all well represented in the R-L21 category.

I am not trying to make any big, grandiose claims here. My own y-line is not Irish, at least as far as I know. The evidence in my case points to the West Midlands of England or perhaps to Wales (although I have Irish ancestry on a few other lines).

I'm just stating facts which anyone is free to verify by taking a look around at the various y-dna projects.

Well, can you pinpoint to any specific project(s)? As I said, it would be cool to see lists/tables (or perhaps a graphic, even though that's hard to display?) of the various subclades of P312 distributed across Europe. I was originally hoping that there would be a pattern visible there. But thus far, from all I heard, there is just a pattern of patternlessness. :disappointed:

 

[rms2]

Well, can you pinpoint to any specific project(s)? As I said, it would be cool to see lists/tables (or perhaps a graphic, even though that's hard to display?) of the various subclades of P312 distributed across Europe. I was originally hoping that there would be a pattern visible there. But thus far, from all I heard, there is just a pattern of patternlessness. :disappointed:

Two sources for U152 are David Faux's R-U152 page and FTDNA's R1b-U152 Project.

Unfortunately, the latter is not organized geographically, which makes picking out the Irish versus everybody else difficult.

The R-L21 Plus Project is here. Check out all its pages. There are a couple of Google maps on the Results page that show the distribution of L21 on the European continent and in the British Isles.

Here are links to some other important FTDNA projects:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/atlantic-r1b1c/default.aspx?/publicwebsite.aspx%3fsection=results&section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/frenchheritage/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Normandy/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Bretagne/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/IberianDNA/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/benelux/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/scandinavianydna/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Italy/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish/default.aspx?section=yresults

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Czech/default.aspx?section=yresults

Hope those help.

 

[Maciamo]

I have split the discussion about R1* in North America, Austronesia and Australia

 

[YLLIRJANIngaYLLIRIA]

No offence, but the first page of this thread with the "data" is almost laughable.


You are assuming that ancient people's DNA is the same as the people who inhabit those same territories today, which is nonsense.


For example, Bulgarian DNA is not Thracian. Bulgarian are a Turkic people, who mixed with Slavs, therefore FOREIGN to the Thracian territory.

Also, the other tribes such as Thracia, Dacia, Illyria, Macedonia, Ancient Greece etc. covered VAST area of land, meaning that it's childish to assume that ALL Illyrians had the same DNA, or all Ancient Greeks, etc.

Slavery occured in those times as well, meaning people mixed.


And there is no such thing as "Roman DNA" because ancient Rome is described as being a mix of Indo Europeans of all over the continent, and even of free slaves from North Africa. Not to mention the Germanic, Mongoloid DNA, etc. that came to the Italian peninsula through invasions.


And Ancient Greeks coming from modern day Ukraine only a theory, a theory which is NOT supported by many historians, which says that the Indo European Urheimat was above the black sea. There are also theories which claim the Indo European Urheimat in the Balkans, or in Anatolia.

I am sorry, i don't mean to offend the starter of this thread, but it's a joke.

 

[elly]

Maciamo,

Can you help with this? My cousin, whose surname is Wolfe, has a Haplogroup T 'Y' Chromosome that comes from Galicia, Western Ukraine. Any idea of the origin of his 'Y'?

 

[Richard Coyle]

Thanks for the info, Maciamo.

 

[willy]

Here is a summary of the current genetic knowledge regarding ancient ethnic groups. This is based on Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups only. For the latest Y-DNA haplogroup tree check the ISOGG's website.


The ancient Egyptians

Based on the modern population of Egypt, and removing the foreign elements, it is reasonable to assume that the ancient Egyptians belonged primarily to haplogroups E1b1b and T. Nowadays about half of the Egyptian paternal lines could be descended from invaders, notably from the Arabic peninsula (hg J1, about 1/3 of the population), but also from Greece, Anatolia and Persia.

The ancient Persians

Iran has a heterogeneous populations when it comes to Y-DNA. Percentages vary greatly between East and West, and from North to South. Ancient Persia was less diverse, but still very mixed by ancient standards. Its ethnic composition prior to the Greek, Arabic and Mongol invasions was probably made of about 40% of haplogroup J (J1 being more predominant in the South and J2 in the North), 25% of hg R1a, 15% of hg F (possibly including G's), 10% of hg G and 10% of hg H, I, K and L.

The ancient Babylonians

Babylonians and Assyrians belonged mostly to haplogroup J (mostly J2, but with some J1 in southern Mesopotamia) with a minority of E1b1b, G and K. Haplogroup G is more common around the Caucasus.

The ancient Greek & Romanss

=> See post #3 below.

The ancient Celts

It is now believed that the ancient Celts were by a very large majority R1b people. Many subclades of R1b divide the various geographic groups of Celts. 2500 years ago, British and Irish Celts belonged mostly to the subclade R1b-L21. Celts from Iberia and south-west Gaul were R1b-M167, while the other Gauls, from central France to southern Germany to northern Italy, belonged to R1b-U152. Further subgroups exist for all these clades (see Origins of European haplogroups).

The ancient Germanic people

The three main haplogroups associated with Germanic people are I1, I2b1 and R1b-U106. The latter is an old pre-Celtic branch of R1b mostly found around Frisia. These people are thought to have mixed with I1 people to form the ancient Germanic culture. In Scandinavia R1a is also quite common, although its presence could have predated a Germanic expansion from northern Germany, Denmark and southern Sweden.

The ancient Slavs

Present-day Eastern Slavs are descended from the ancient Kurgan culture of the Eurasian steppes. The Scythians were the branch of R1a that remained in the steppes of from whom modern Russians are descended (along with other haplogroups). Slavic Europeans belonged to haplogroup R1a and I2. Southern Slavs have a much higher proportion of I2 (notably in the Croatia).

Eastern Europeans from the Danubian basin and the Balkans have also inherited a sizeable percentage of haplogroup E (and some G and T) from the expansion Neolithic farmers that started from northern Greece 7,000 years ago (Linear Pottery culture).

The ancient Indians

The Indo-Aryan people who invaded the Indian peninsula from Central Asia and Iran 3,500 years ago belonged mostly to haplogroups R1a, with also some R2 and J2. This is known from the analysis of Y-DNA of the upper castes of Indian society (the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas), thought to be descended from the Indo-Aryans with minimal admixture on the paternal side. The native Dravidians belonged to the indigenous South Asian haplogroups F, H and L.

The ancient Chinese

Haplogroup O is associated with the Han ethnicity, as well as most of the people of East Asia and Polynesia. Nowadays O2a is the most common in northern China, and O1a in southern China.

The ancient Japanese

Modern Japanese people are composed of two ancient ethnicities : the Yayoi people, who migrated from the Korean peninsula about 2,300 years ago, bringing with them agriculture; and the Jomon people, the hunter-gathers who had lived on the archipelago for millennia before that. The Yayoi were hg O people, like the Chinese and Koreans. The Jomon belonged mostly to the rare haplogroup D (also found in Tibet and in the Andamans, some of the most isolated places on Earth). For more information see The Origin of Japanese people.

The ancient Americans

Be them nomadic tribes from North America, Aztecs, Mayas, Quechuas or cannibals from Amazonia, almost all native Americans belonged to haplogroup Q1a3a, but a minority of hg C existed in North America.

Yes but R1a in India predate the Aryan Invasion some particular subclades of R1a were involved in the Indo Europeans